> Just as we have 'human-readable code' why shouldn't our laws be machine readable? Computers can remember/understand 200+ years of case law probably better than humans. Again, this is something that we could test.
Great website, however I'm going to play a straight bat on this one.
While I think expert systems have enormous potential to reduce costs and errors in legal matters, the fact remains that when the law is against your client, you must still try your level best to generate a new exception if they insist on going to court against your advice.
There is also the problem that large parts of the law rely on judicial or executive discretion, thus leading you computer to do what lawyers do: say "maybe" and bill you $600 for the time to say it.
Great website, however I'm going to play a straight bat on this one.
While I think expert systems have enormous potential to reduce costs and errors in legal matters, the fact remains that when the law is against your client, you must still try your level best to generate a new exception if they insist on going to court against your advice.
There is also the problem that large parts of the law rely on judicial or executive discretion, thus leading you computer to do what lawyers do: say "maybe" and bill you $600 for the time to say it.
I'm guilty of the same idea, by the way: http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/25/programming-in-legal/
These days I am less confident that it would work for the hard cases; but it could expand the field of bread-and-butter legal work.