Origin Story: The Case, the Conflict, the Connection

The Case

In the land of opportunity, a minority from an immigrant family strives to actualize his American Dream, anchored by ambition and a small business. Every hustle counts, including selling a car through personal financing and a self-drafted contract. But the document, however genuine in its intent, lacked the precision and protection a professional legal document should provide, and the car's modest price did not justify hiring a traditionally expensive attorney.

The Conflict  

Payments are delayed; the buyer, perhaps empowered by the gaps in the contract, breaches it repeatedly. Acting on the contract's vague terms, the seller reclaimed the car. Instead of rectifying the situation, the buyer secures legal representation, wielding it against the unsuspecting seller. Absent any legal shield or sword of his own, the seller unwittingly incurs a default judgment amounting to nearly triple the car's original value. This gross disparity in legal might echoes a broader problem: inequitable access to legal resources.

The Connection 

Eager to right the wrongs, I took on the case, aiming to reverse the judgment. As a younger attorney, I tried to blend my legal know-how with the promise of technology. I turned to ChatGPT to aid my legal research, hoping it would provide me with the edge I needed. The cases and citations it provided seemed impeccable. Overwhelmingly impressed and elated to the point of not thinking clearly, I integrated them into the motion, got the green light from my supervising attorney, and filed it. It's only on the morning of the hearing that reality crashes: ChatGPT's cases, while artfully detailed, were fabrications. The judge, clearly disturbed, denied the motion, fortifying the initial injustice.

The Point 

The story catapulted me to unwelcome stardom, as AI's role in the legal misstep grips national headlines. The aftermath brought scrutiny, not just on my actions but on the broader implications of AI in legal practice. This blunder now scars my resume, making law firms wary. But amid my job-hunting introspection, I grasped the irony: AI, the instrument of my fall, could've been the tool to preempt the entire fiasco. My error, though unintentional, cast a spotlight on an essential truth: AI, if harnessed correctly, could address the significant disparities in access to legal services. For example, had the seller harnessed AI to frame the initial contract, comprehend post-breach rights, and grasp the court's intricacies, the ensuing mess might've been avoided. In an age dominated by technology, using AI wisely might be the very pivot that tips the scales of justice.

It's a revelation that has imbued me with a renewed purpose. The legal profession has long been hindered by prohibitive costs and outmoded billing traditions, often sidelining those most in need. Championing technology like AI, from within the legal fraternity, could revolutionize this dynamic. I've since made it my mission to advocate for the incorporation of reliable AI tools to make justice more accessible. The phrase "justice for all" should be more than an ideal; with the advent of Artificial Intelligence, it can become a reality. And if fulfilling this vision means my traditional legal role diminishes or becomes altogether obsolete, so be it. It's time we ensure justice truly is av{AI}lable for all.

Zachariah C. Crabill, JD