DoNotPay's attempt to use AI in Supreme Court arguments did not materialize, reflecting broader frustrations. Adam Unikowsky experimented independently using AI tools for an oral argument. He notes that Supreme Court litigators feel their time could be better spent than engaging in lengthy discussions that seem redundant. Unikowsky suggests that AI might offer solutions in navigating these traditional legal landscapes, potentially aligning with current political discourse and practices. The experiment, notably with AI tools like Claude 4.0, illustrates both the potential and challenges of integrating AI into law.
My conclusion: Supreme Court litigators can't think of a billable rate high enough to make them want to sit through these extended oral argument times.
If you needed more confirmation that the Supreme Court bar is losing patience with devoting a half day of time to play "this could've been an email (brief)" with a crop of justices just voting the party platform... here it is.
Collection
[
|
...
]