is right here. Lateral thinking is what's required for good
  lawyering and it's precisely the thing that algorithms are
  generally not good at identifying. There's improvements but
  computers have a LONG way to go. For simple matters with "go/no
  go" simple options/fixed leeway available, then yes, neural
  networks could probably do a fine job with a portion of cases.
  There's a number of factors in being a lawyer - much of it is
  social engineering. Timing for example. The timing the facts are
  released, What evidence to withhold when it's not really
  withholding. Ignorance. Anticipating the responses of the other
  is also big. But I'm not a lawyer - I'm going by TV shows and
  speculation tongue emoticon [my sister was a paralegal for
  decades - bankruptcy, tracking down deadbeats and countering
  some very clever business ppl and odd govt laws alike] Let me
  give a simple example of lateral thinking I experienced a couple
  of years ago: I was cracking the case and watched evidence
  appear just in time to save important documents:
  https://archive.org/details/LateralThinkingWater

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.