Bridget McCormack

That's true for, in my view, you know, most cases for which there is a rule of law and we know, you know, how it's been interpreted historically or at least how it's been correctly interpreted historically by a majority of courts.

There are always going to be new frontiers in legal.

So, you know, cases where courts are having to decide how to interpret a new statute.

Courts are going to have to figure that out for the first time.

That's not going to be able to be deterministic.

could get better and better, frankly.

I think AI could do a very good job at the front end of statutory drafting in making sure there was less ambiguity in statutory terms, I think.

So I think AI could impact that.

But there are even still modern questions about historic provisions in statutes and constitutions, state and federal, that

We have entrusted judges to decide.

So I don't think it can all be deterministic.

I think an awful lot could be, and it would improve the way the law operates.

I don't think there's a single answer.

I do think the fact that 92% of Americans can't afford help with their legal problems, and that's not just the kinds of cases individuals end up going to court for.

It's also true for all small and medium businesses, for the most part, can't afford lawyers.

So there's an awful lot of trying to navigate legal risk and legal problems without lawyers.

And that's complicated.

That's actually, frankly, very complicated for judges.

Judges who are managing large dockets with many parties without lawyers try and do their best to work their way through those documents.

those problems, but it's not easy.