Find solution
How to pass the CA bar exam to be an attorney?

Theoretically, could a computer one day : (1) pass a state bar exam or (2) successfully challenge a human opposing counsel in court? Would a computer make the "perfect" attorney or judge?

  • Computers have already conquered humans at chess (finite moves and solutions) and Jeopardy (infinite "moves" and solutions). What about law? I have thought about this for several years and am very curious what everyone thinks. EDIT: In light of some of the early Answers to this Question, I wanted to make clear that I am asking this Question precisely because I am a CA-licensed attorney and thus intimately familiar with the nature of bar exams generally. I am fully aware of the limitations of technology which today would utterly preclude the possibility of a computer successful taking a bar exam, let alone putting up a decent fight in a courtroom. I am merely asking whether it is theoretically conceivable that a computer could ever -- i.e., one day in the future, and if so, how far in the future -- reach such levels of cognitive intelligence. Question edited accordingly to more accurately reflect the nature of my query. This is a follow up question to:

  • Answer:

    Having watched my fiancee just take the CA bar exam, and helping her prep here or there: Not anytime soon, not the way we are trending with AI. Chess is party brute force. The system has a lot of potential choices, but ultimately the system is rather simple, knights move a certain way, bishops move a certain way. Watson on Jeopardy had to analyse just a short statement plus a category name, and then respond with the right bit of trivia. Comparing Jeopardy's question format to even the CA bar multiple choice (the easiest part for a computer)... is like comparing the brute force required to master tic-tac-toe with Go. The CA bar has 3 parts, each worse for a computer to tackle: 1) Multiple Choice 2) Essays and 3) Performance Exams. I'll explain why computers won't be doing well on the CA Bar in that order. 1) Multiple Choice: Passing the multiple choice exam would require a level of comprehension that is leagues above what Watson did to come up with "What is the Nile River?".  You are talking about many types of question setups, vastly expanded amounts of verbs and nouns, and multiple levels of facts and analysis. Watson meanwhile, needed to run an analysis on just a few keywords supplied.  Even then it struggled if the format ventured outside the expected. Look at the questions (I'll include a few $2,000 questions below), and think of them in terms of the complexity in understanding what is asked: ETUDE, BRUTE $2000 : From 1911 to 1917, this Romantic Russian composed "Etudes-Tableaux" for piano : Rachmaninoff* CAMBRIDGE $2000 : This "Narnia" author went from teaching at Magdalen College, Oxford to teaching at Magdalene College, Cambridge : C.S. Lewis* "CHURCH" & "STATE" $2000 : It's New Zealand's second-largest city : Christchurch* That is literally trivia.  Who composed "etudes-Tableaux"? Who wrote "Narnia"? What's the 2nd largest city in New Zealand? Watson's great accomplishment was being able to break down these simple questions to understand what was being asked, and then fetch that info from it's database and press a "buzzer" at speeds only a computer can do those tasks. A CA Bar Watson would certainly have the legal database it needs... but can we teach it to answer this? : MBE SAMPLE QUESTIONS: (Question One): A father lived with his son, who was addicted to crack cocaine. Under its influence, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was under the influence of crack and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of crack or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self defense? (A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case. (B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence was sufficient to raise the defense. (C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son. (D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force. This isn't Kansas anymore.  And it sure as hell isn't "What is Christchurch" either. 2) Essays: Essays on the bar rarely even cover just one type of law, they are typically "cross-overs".  The computer will have to read the paragraphs, break down and understand the "facts" being given in each sentence, understand what legal questions are being asked, and then respond with a coherent outline and essay explaining the law and how the given facts apply. Basically, it's like the above multiple choice, except now the computer has to generate a 1,000 answer word instead of picking from 4 options. Here are the last ones from February 2011:  http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bh5Y-xQTGA0%3D&tabid=2348 Question 2: Out of a sense of patriotism, Charles enlisted in the United States Army. Charles had risen to the rank of Captain. Shortly  after  that  promotion,  after serious  reflection,  Charles  began  to  rethink  his previous  religious, philosophical,  and  political  views.  He  modified  the  religious preference  he  listed  on  his  Army  records  from  “Christian”  to  “Belief  in  a  Superior Principle  of  Noninterference  with  Others  Who  Have  Not  Harmed  You.”  Charles concluded that his belief did not prohibit his assignment to duty in Country A, but it did preclude his assignment to duty in Country B.  Federal  law  requires  military  personnel  to  accept  any  assignment  to  duty, but  when Charles was  assigned to  duty in Country B,  he  declined to  go, and was  charged  with refusing to  deploy.  Since the  charges  were  brought, Charles has frequently criticized American involvement in Country B. Charles wishes to raise a defense against the refusal to deploy charge based solely on (1) the Free Exercise Clause and (2) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  What is the likelihood of Charles prevailing?  Discuss. Come on Watson... Discuss! 3) Performance Exams: It gets even worse with the performance exams. Exam 1 on the February 2011 exam consisted of 31 pages of questions and information, yon can see it here on page 5 through 36: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=YY6TvDtv0wE%3D&tabid=2348 These performance exams are "closed universe" tests - the law is made up, the ruling are made up, the facts are made up.  You have to read and understand everything given, analysis it, develop a new set of rules during that examination of all 30 pages of material.  Then you tackle writing a response that answers the questions asked of you on page 5, using the new rules and systems you just developed from reading the given material. ----- Conclusion:  The CA Bar is probably the worst test to throw a computer.

Orin Hite at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Is it theoretically possible? Yes, it is theoretically possible. Absolutely. How soon? It's just around the corner. How far away is the corner? Now why did you have to go and ask that!!! I dunno...Probably between 5 and 500 years. That seems like a safe guess. The problem comes down to building computers that are able to: Identify a goal based on situational context. (Prove innocence to 3rd party, disprove innocence to 3rd party, support information as "truth", disprove information as "falsehood", etc.) Collect and absorb information that has been encoded in loosely structured language (at least by current machine standards). Interpret that information and determine what is relevant to the situational context. Collect information provided by opposing counsel. Interpret information provided by opposing counsel. Identify gaps between opposing counsel interpretation of information as applied to context and own interpretation as applied to context. Determine which gaps are an obstacle towards goal and which gaps can be used as an advantage towards goal. Assemble and present cohesive argument. There is a detail about the opposing council being human; that I'm less sure of. I can only hope that once computers have achieved this level of logical reasoning capability that they come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to let the human species continue to exist.

Ian McCullough

I know nothing of law specifically, however, futurists predict that at our current trends in technological advancement, artificial intelligence will reach the "singularity" by 2050. This is a term used to describe the point when artificial intelligence surpasses the capabilities of human intelligence and can improve itself. As it improved, it's capacity would grow exponentially. So when could a machine argue a case in court?...no later than 2050.

Matt Peterson

Just for myself, I would like to have a computer as part of my defense team for the purpose of monitoring procedure (avoid procedural errors that might prejudice my case, and seek out procedural errors on the opposition's part).  But I think I'd be more comfortable with having a human develop, and deliver, the actual arguments. After reading some of the other answers, I would like to add: If I were a defendant and had opportunity to assemble a defense team, I would absolutely insist on one AI as part of the team.  That way, I could be assured that no stone would remain unturned in my defense.  The AI could do research on all questions affecting my defense, at a far faster rate than a human.  Gotta have that edge, especially when I realize that the prosecution will have their own AI; which means, having an AI on my own team is not "gaining the edge"; it is actually, "barely keeping up!" I wish to bring up another issue. Do I want an AI as my judge?  My first reaction was, "No! the dang computer won't be able to understand the human issues in my case, it'll just look at the clear, cold letter of the law!"  But then I realized, this is another category (that is, the human issues) which can be described, quantified, spelled out in detail and it can be codified into computer language.  An AI created to be a judge can be given an entire module dedicated to assuring that the human aspects of the case will be considered and judged, impartially. And here is where I sat bolt upright in my chair.  OMG, I thought to myself, I want to have an AI as my judge, and NOT a HUMAN!  Two counties away, a man just retired from the bench.  His nickname was, "The Hanging Judge."  He always handed out the most severe sentences for every infraction.  Now, most of the crooks led before him deserved the strongest sentence.  But, and here's my point, every now and then there was one individual who had some extenuating circumstance which should have been taken into account before the sentence was pronounced.  An AI could be programmed to do that.  But this guy, this "hanging judge", refused to do that.  And because he's a human, he can get away with it.  But, with and AI sitting as a judge, I could be assured that my case would be examined and all extenuating circumstances would be taken into account, just as it would do for every other defendant that appeared before it.  The AI would give me a fair shake, always.  The human judge is more variable.  One (human) judge might give me a free pass out of jail card.  Another (human) might have me breaking rocks at hard labor for twenty years.  An AI judge would be impartial, handing out the appropriate punishment in every case.  Which would I choose?  Human judge or AI judge? I think now that my second reaction, after careful consideration, would be to avoid the human factor and opt for an AI judge.  I won't get the free pass, but then I won't get the twenty years at hard labort, either.  I would take the AI.  That is, once i've been shown that it is programmed correctly.

Morry Secrest

I think the question of attorney doesn't arise. Let us assume it is representing a defendant. It will know all about law and we can't teach it to exaggerate or play down facts. So it would know if the client is guilty. So, in its opening statement, it will dutifully incriminate the client, if really guilty. If the client is not guilty, it will present impeccable defense and a human prosecutor would stand no chance. If it functions as a prosecutor, it would review the facts and know whether the defendant is guilty or not. A human defense attorney would not stand a chance. So there would be no need for trial and it will effectively function as a judge. We would also not need appeals courts and even supreme court. If we need them, we are not ready and have to go back to the model.

Rajan Ayyappan

Having a computer assist a courtroom in finding errors in evidence introduction, as well as questions that are formatted improperly, might just help keep things above the level, so to speak. I think a computer could easily pass the bar, and might do a pretty decent job at challenging a human lawyer, but it's the creativity of an incredible attorney with a wide breadth of knowledge of the law that a computer would have a very difficult time keeping up with...

Steve Woods

No Because unlike Chess, the Law doesn't follow the principles of logic and mathematical rigor. See this question:

Dan Schneider

Im sure computer can be taught to pass an exam, because it is structured and largely precedent-based

Victoria Perepelitsa

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.