“It Doesn’t Have A Law License And Can’t Argue When There Is Jail Threats” – US Law Firm Sues Robot Lawyer

Please follow and like us:

The world’s first robot lawyer, developed by a startup, DoNotPay, has been sued over allegations of fraud by appearing in the courtroom without a law license to practice in the United States.

According to Washington Examiner, DoNotPay’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Joshua Browder and his company have defended Artificial Intelligence to take up the law profession.

However, minutes submitted to the court on March 3 and released on Monday, said the first robot lawyer’s appearance might also be his last.

Artificial intelligence, which has been publicized as the “world’s first robot lawyer” and offers consultancy services on more than 150 subjects, has been on the agenda of both the US and the world in recent months.

The robot lawyer is facing a proposed class section lawsuit filed by Chicago-based law firm, Edelson and published on the website of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.

“Unfortunately for its customers, DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, or a law firm. DoNotPay does not have a law degree, is not barred in any jurisdiction, and is not supervised by any lawyer,” the complaint argued.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jonathan Faridian, who said he hired the services of DoNotPay to draft various legal documents including demand letters, a small claims court filing, and a job discrimination complaint.

The Washington Examiner reported that the AI launched by DoNotPay, could not be used due to the warnings of the court as it was preparing to appear in its first court on February 22.

Browder said the AI is “the world’s first robot lawyer” and “an alternative and inexpensive solution to lawyers.” But, the lawyers have accused the DoNotPay initiative of being “a technology company that manipulates users and acts like a lawyer.”

The documents submitted to the court also included comments made by several citizens who wanted to have their parking tickets removed using DoNotPay’s advisory system.

They complained about paying more than double the amount they should have paid to the court because of the advice of artificial intelligence.

Reacting that DoNotPay received more than 90% bad reviews on the internet and social media as “a failed attempt and a large-scale fraud”, the lawyers judged the CEO of the company with the crimes of “fraud by persuasion” and “informatics fraud.”

In addition, the documents submitted to the court alleged that there would be no problem if the artificial intelligence were described as a “legal adviser” instead of a lawyer, but that the company deliberately lied to market this software in a manipulative way.

MailOnline has approached DoNotPay for comment.

Former Stanford University student, Joshua Browder, founded DoNotPay in 2015 and initially intended for it to appeal parking tickets in the UK.

Since then, the company has expanded to the US and can now give advice on a number of other subjects including delayed flights, workplace rights and misleading advert claims.

While DoNotPay was set to make history for advising the first defendant with a robot lawyer in court, this did not go ahead due to jail threats.

China has been the first to use artificial intelligence in the courtroom.

In January, Mr Browder tweeted: ‘Bad news: after receiving threats from State Bar prosecutors, it seems likely they will put me in jail for 6 months if I follow through with bringing a robot lawyer into a physical courtroom.’

Jonathan Faridian, who filed the Edelson lawsuit against DoNotPay, added that he had personally used DoNotPay’s services to draft a discrimination complaint, a small claims filing and a number of other legal documents

Mr Faridian said he ‘believed he was purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them’ but did not receive that.

The March 3 file continued: ‘Sadly, DoNotPay misses the point. Providing legal services to the public, without being a lawyer or even supervised by a lawyer is reckless and dangerous. And it has real world consequences for the customers it hurts.

‘One customer, who posted an online review, used DoNotPay’s legal services to dispute two parking tickets. According to his account, his fines actually increased because DoNotPay failed to respond to the ticket summons. The customer then cancelled his account, but DoNotPay continued to charge a subscription fee.

‘DoNotPay’s service then reversed another customer’s arguments in her parking ticket dispute. Where she had intended to argue she was not at fault, DoNotPay’s services instead admitted fault, and the customer had to pay a resulting $114 fine.

‘As of the time of writing, DoNotPay’s website still refers to itself as the “World’s First Robot Lawyer” and continues to offer these legal products to the public, casting doubt on its intention to stop masquerading as a licensed practitioner.’

The Edelson lawsuit also stated that DoNotPay’s founder is not a lawyer.

In response, Mr Browder tweeted that the ‘claims have no merit’, adding that DoNotPay would not be ‘bullied by America’s richest class action lawyer’, referring to Jay Edelson who founded the firm.

He said: ‘Time and time again the only people that win are the lawyers. So I wanted to do something about it, building the DoNotPay robot lawyer to empower consumers to take on corporations on their own. This put my target on my back and Edelson began a campaign to stop us.

‘Usually, the best response would be to stay quiet/settle. Edelson has successfully sued Google, Amazon and Apple for billions. The NYT calls him the “most feared lawyer in Silicon Valley.” But DoNotPay is not going to be bullied by America’s richest class action lawyer.

‘So, we are fighting back! We have the receipts, have nothing to hide and will defend ourselves. We may even use our robot lawyer in the case.’

Jay Edelson said the firm ‘understood’ that DoNotPay would try to ‘distract’ from its misconduct once a lawsuit had been filed.

He told Insider: ‘We understood when we filed suit that Josh and DoNotPay would try to distract from their misconduct in any way possible. They attacked our client and now are attacking me.’

Mr Edelson also told MailOnline: ‘The core of our claim is that Josh is selling junk services. A quick glance at the BBB reviews makes our case as well as anything else could. In the end, we are confident that we will prove to a jury that DoNotPay DoesNotWork.’