Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Wouldn't the IRS be fit for that job? Maybe if they were properly funded and enabled... Then again, a more specialized regulatory agency would work better. Then again, conservatives would rail against more regulation and government oversight and try everything possible to kill it.

EDIT: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

I suppose it'd be easier to reform the healthcare system....

[Truean]

Please do not quote:

You'd need a separate specialized agency focused on legal, financial, insurance, and medical record interpretation. Even the SSA has to have separate departments for certain types of claims, disability, survivor-ship, Medi (care, caid, etc), and there's a massive backlog of those. IRS honestly wouldn't presently have the subject matter medical records stuff.

Please do not quote:

[wierd]

You would think this would be one of the actually beneficial use cases for robo-lawyers, since they can be stridently pedantic in their "review" (tongue firmly in cheek about the known issues with machines and natural language processing), at the very least, they could take a huge bite out of the "insurmountable" undertaking (since they can work tirelessly), leaving only the more niggly bits for actual attorneys.  Sadly, the result of implementing robolawyers in this case would be the insurance companies paying their own lawyers to further make muddy hell of the problem.

In all due deference, I do wonder why the legal profession is so willing to throw their profession and the world under the bus for big corps like this.  It seems like they dangle the benjamins, and their nazgul create ever greater legal horrors.

I thought one of the oaths you swear when you take the bar exam is to never do anything to disgrace the profession?  I honestly wonder if that oath has any teeth some times.

[smjjames]

I thought one of the oaths you swear when you take the bar exam is to never do anything to disgrace the profession?  I honestly wonder if that oath has any teeth some times.

I think that's doctors, and lawyers have to do some pretty disgraceful things (in the public eye anyway) like defend nasty criminals, so, it'd be a challenge for lawyers to not disgrace their profession.

I'm sure Truean would have their own opinions on it though.

[wierd]

In many jurisdictions, attorneys certainly do have an oath they must swear to be recognised by the bar. For example, here is California's.

https://www.calbarxap.com/applications/CalBar/PDFs/code_section_6068.pdf

Note item (g).

This could certainly be interpreted to require the attorney to reject the demands of an insurer, who requests documents specifically for the purposes of evading promised reimbursement. This is especially poignant, when taken with item (h), as the person(s) the insurer seeks to avoid remuneration toward are often powerless victims, to wit T has attested.

Given the prevalence at which the legal profession has been coopted to be engaged in outright nefarious dealings, with the explicit aim of enrichment of the client at the detriment of numerous and disparate persons, I question why disbarring is not more commonplace as a deterrent against such practices.

EG, have the bar associations become hypocrites?

EDIT:
Here is the "Pillars of Professionalism" document that attorneys at law must abide by in Kansas (my home state, dubiously.)
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/kspilarsofprofessionalism

The third section deals with professional ethics, and the obligations the attorney has toward them:

With respect to the profession and the public:

1.
Be mindful that, as members of a self-governing profession,
lawyers have an obligation to act in a way that does not
adversely affect the profession or the system of justice.


2.
Be mindful that, as members of the legal profession, lawyers
have an obligation to the rule of law and to ensure that the
benefits and the burdens of the law are applied equally to all persons.

3.
Participate  in  continuing  legal  education  and  legal 
publications  to  share  best practices  for  dealing  ethically 
and  professionally  with  all  participants  in  the judicial system.
 
4.
Take opportunities to improve the legal system and profession.
 
5.
Give back to the community through pro bono, civic or
charitable involvement, mentoring, or other public service.
 
6.
Defend  the  profession  and  the  judiciary  against 
unfounded  and  unreasonable attacks and educate
others so that such attacks are minimized or eliminated.
 
7.
Be mindful of how technology could result in unanticipated consequences.
A lawyer’s  comments  and  actions  can  be  broadcast  to  a  large  and
potentially unanticipated audience.
 
8.
In all your activities, act in a manner which, if publicized, would reflect well on
the legal profession.

[Truean]

Please do not quote:

Lawyers need protection, often from their own clients, physically and professionally.

This is especially true for oversight staff. No one should be able to fire what is reviewing them. It's often a choice between no job (under active bullying) with no ability to make ANY improvement or doing the best you can. I have personally experienced this and lost well over a half million dollars so far from it. It basically all but broke me, and no I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Lawyers sometimes take undeserved blame. If I told my moron client not to rob a bank and he does.... not my issue.
 Robot anything sucks. Really? A.) The task isn't insurmountable it's just unfunded, B.) The robot overlords appreciate their proposed new death panel role of denying medical care payment quickly.... Human is better her (and in rush the tech people calling me a ludite, no but nice try. Been done before).

But look at that Trump lawyer story (I'll find it soon) where the attorney misled Trump about his ability to fire James Comet a bit..... Right, wrong, or indifferent, that poor lawyer was at least intending to avoid major scandals, but really it's a no win situation. If you say he can fire, then the blowback is there, but if you say he can, then also clearly an issue. There is no safe answer, and that (without judging one way or the other) is an issue.

The autocorrect has run nuts during this..... of course

Ultimately I don't like the issue. Is the system messed up? God yes! Does that mean it's Lawyer's fault? No but the question isn't useful. People just want someone to blame and easy answers that are short vague and target someone else. That's easy. Fixing stuff is hard.

Answers would address fundamental issues like power imbalance, etc, but That's hard and doesn't fit in a sound bite.

Humans want knowledge without study, reward without effort or cost, and 0 problems while looking fantastic....

The fact that the autocorrect screwed up so much is part of my POINT. Imagine that's a med record.... yeah. Wrong dose anyone? Wrong code = not paid? The underlined material is just what a cursory glance revealed. Robo in this situation is your life in the hands of autocorrect. I hope you don't mind your organs being rearranged and "auto-corrected," along with your large medical bills.

Client wants to purchase an outcome the ethical lawyer won't give unless under duress, so client fires ethical lawyer for .... someone perhaps less so.... or just gets the computer program incorrectly or unethically saying it's just fine to deny you healthcare, cheaper, easier, and with 0 or little consequence.....

Your only chance is a human in an independent protected role who can't be fired for doing the right thing that the client doesn't feel like doing (ins. Paying the right amount for life saving care).
Please do not quote:

[smjjames]

The sentence "ultimately, I don't like the issue."* actually looks fine to me. But yes, I completely get your point about autocorrect, iphone autocorrect for example, it does a decent job of catching accidentially pressing a letter instead of space, but otherwise it lives up to it's reputation.

I've also seen that story of one of Trumps lawyers misleading him about whether he needed a reason to fire Comey. People weren't saying that Trump's lawyer was being a bad lawyer, just that it was a sign that they didn't trust Trump not to act rashly. Not that it stopped Trump obviously.

Also, in the obverse. autocorrect or spellcheck not catching mistakes can also be an issue. MS Word did it by pointing out mistakes, and a smarter AI could do that by pointing out mistakes and grammar problems rather than correcting them on the spot to what it thinks is correct. That said, until AI reaches the same capacity as humans, there is really no replacement to having a person look it over.

*I know you said please don't quote, but it's not a direct quote, and it's contextless.

[Akura]

Production manager calls the District Manager, tells him that we're probably going to run out of stuff to process before the end of the day, on account of the blizzard the other day and the fact we didn't get anyone to plow any part of our parking lot for some reason until last night. This disrupted our deliveries and donations(oddly, yesterday's sales were up from last year). The DM tells the PM to send the production crew home at 12:00, and we are sent home... despite the fact that we still had probably at least an hour's worth of stuff to process, and as I was leaving I saw what looked like a delivery truck parked near our loading bay.

To be fair, that might not have been a delivery truck, it could have been there to pick up recycling or something.

[overseer05-15]

I don't mean to sound rude, but are you actually complaining about being able to leave work early?

[Loud Whispers]

I don't mean to sound rude, but are you actually complaining about being able to leave work early?

Leaving with work undone is work that will need to be done later

[Reelya]

Getting sent home early from a job isn't like getting the day off school. If they're sending you home early, you can bet that they're paying you by the hour, not a salary (otherwise they'd task y'all to cleaning the entire place or something to use up the time).

Also, commutes of 90 minutes to 2 hours each way are fairly normal if you live and work in a city, so you effectively would have got 3 hours pay, but the total time it consumed of your day could really be 7 hours. The overheads are proportionally more, when the day is cut short. Damn straight you'd complain about have your hours cut. It's not a paid holiday.

[Akura]

Pretty much. A lot of people are complaining about lost hours this week.

[Lord Shonus]

That is the first time I've ever seen a quarterback throw a touchdown pass to himself. A strange game.

[IronTomato]

That is the first time I've ever seen a quarterback throw a touchdown pass to himself. A strange game.

Wait, someone did that and it actually worked? What was the purpose of that?

[smjjames]

That is the first time I've ever seen a quarterback throw a touchdown pass to himself. A strange game.

Wait, someone did that and it actually worked? What was the purpose of that?

Possibly a fakeout if they didn't see a way of making it work?

I'd imagine others were going 'the heck are you doing with that highly parabolic throw arc?'