[quote=bearishgurl]flu, imagine yourself a plaintiff in court represented by your lawyer, who is a “Dr Watson robot.” Your lawyer misses the nuances of a cross examination on you, which will need “cleaning up,” so the jury can put your previous testimony into context. Upon redirect, (s)he/it does not ask you the right questions, so the jury takes at face value how you answered when you were trapped in a cross-examination and you lose the case based on this (and likely a whole slew of other errors in your case that your “counsel,” “Dr Watson,” made).
Do you think you will be able to sue Dr Watson for malpractice (in attempt to recover all or some of your losses which should have been won)? How about filing a complaint with the state bar against Dr. Watson? How well do you think that will go over?
What if Dr Watson, the criminal practitioner, makes such egregious errors representing a defendant accused of a capital crime that that defendant ends up sentenced to death as a result of a jury verdict but was actually innocent but framed? What is the remedy against Dr Watson?
I could go on and on but you can see where I’m going here. The stakes are just simply too high in the legal system to allow “Dr Watson” to “practice law” :=0[/quote]
I didn’t say Watson could replace lawyers. I said Watson would more readily replace legal support functions a lawyer needs.
