You Can Replace Supreme Court Lawyers With AI Now. Honestly, That Tracks.

Above The Law: “No one ever took DoNotPay up on its offer to pay $1 million (Opens in a new window) to anyone willing to use their AI system to argue a Supreme Court case. It was a wild swing from a company that couldn’t even successfully get their system into traffic court (Opens in a new window). But we always appreciated the gumption. The Supreme Court oral argument is an academic circle jerk before the majority decides to Trump can just disappear people and that they will not dwell on any counterarguments (Opens in a new window), so why not let ChatGPT take a stab at it? And at the time we suggested DoNotPay aim slightly lower and set up an experiment to moot an upcoming Supreme Court case. They didn’t go ahead with that. Because… well, the FTC stuff happened (Opens in a new window). Jenner & Block’s Adam Unikowsky decided to go ahead and perform an experiment on his own (Opens in a new window) using the top consumer-facing AI tools out there right now. Taking his own oral argument from Williams v. Reed (Opens in a new window) (which he won, providing his post a bonus humblebrag element), Unikowsky fed the briefs and key precedent into Claude 4.0 Opus, asked it the questions posed by the real justices and hit the button. And if you don’t want to read the transcript, he employed ChatGPT’s new “Advanced Voice Mode,” and piped in a synthetic ElevenLabs voice spliced in with the justices and made an audio track of the whole argument…”

See also Above the Law – Is Legal Ready For An AI Diagnostic Orchestrator? Legal problems require experience and wisdom to be analyzed correctly, right? Maybe.