Company Behind First Ever AI Lawyer DoNotPay Wants to Take it the US Supreme Court

Last week, we reported how an AI was set to make legal history by assisting in the defense of an accused speeder. Now, it seems that the company behind the program, DoNotPay, wants to take their program to the US Supreme Court. This came to be as the CEO of DoNotPay, Joshua Browder, took to Twitter to issue an interesting challenge – they will pay any lawyer a million dollars if they took their program to the high court and allow it to argue for them. Now the question is, is the challenge a legit show of confidence in their AI program, or simply a publicity stunt?

You can see the first Tweet below:

DoNotPay will pay any lawyer or person $1,000,000 with an upcoming case in front of the United States Supreme Court to wear AirPods and let our robot lawyer argue the case by repeating exactly what it says. (1/2)

— Joshua Browder (@jbrowder1) January 9, 2023

In the following Tweet, Joshua Browder explains that next month’s court case in municipal court is far too easy for their program. He’s so confident in his AI’s ability to litigate in live court, he’s ready to go straight to the highest court in the United States. An interesting proposition to say the least and of course a logical conclusion of where AI would go in any industry. But with that said, even if they find a lawyer willing to allow the program to take the lead in a case before the court there is a problem.

We have upcoming cases in municipal (traffic) court next month. But the haters will say “traffic court is too simple for GPT.”

So we are making this serious offer, contingent on us coming to a formal agreement and all rules being followed.

Please contact me if interested!

— Joshua Browder (@jbrowder1) January 9, 2023

The issue isn’t the program or AI technology as a whole. It’s just technology in general. That’s because the US Supreme Court is very sensitive to what is allowed in the courtroom during sessions. Cameras, records, and other devices are strictly prohibited. The court is so sensitive, that to date there are only TWO known photos of the court in session. And of course, as you’d guess each was taken in secret without the knowledge of the justices. The reason for this decades-long tradition is not only security but a desire to allow justices to openly deliberate without the worry of public scrutiny. This allows justices to freely ask questions and propose certain questions to allow attorneys to explain their legal theory in a holistic manner.

Other users on Twitter were also quick to point this fact out. For example, Ted Frank, Director of Litigation at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute:

SCOTUS doesn’t let attorneys wear AirPods or bring an iPhone into court. No electronic devices at all, I couldn’t even bring the iPad I’ve used for every other oral argument, and I had to shlep in two dozen different briefs in paper, with little 3M tags like a savage.

— (((tedfrank))) (@tedfrank) January 9, 2023

Though it’s doubtful that the Supreme Court would allow for changes to their privacy policy, as it’s popular among both ideological wings of the court, the offer poses a very interesting question. As alluded to in the beginning of this article this is the natural course of AI as it becomes more mainstream across industries. More and more professionals are learning to use AI-powered tools to not replace their work, but enhance what they deliver. But it’s still a ways off before it gets there in law, at least when it comes to the US Supreme Court.