OK,
simmer
down.
You
know
that
I
am
not
fond
of
AI,
at least
so
far,
but
have
you
ever
tried
to
explain
the
relevant
Rules
of
Professional
Responsibility
to
a
nonlawyer
client,
which
is
most,
if
not
all,
clients?
Have
you
ever
tried
to
explain
even
one
rule
to
a
client?
Do
their
eyes
glaze
over?
Do
they
start
to
twitch?
Do
they
excuse
themselves
to
get
another
cup
of
coffee?
Can
you
blame
them?
Trying
to
explain
any
of
the
rules
—
and
usually
there’s
more
than
one
involved
in
client
representation
—
is
like
trying
to
put
lipstick
on
a
pig.
That
pig
squirms
and
squeals,
finally
wriggling
out
of
your
grasp,
running
everywhere,
anywhere,
to
avoid
explanations
of
rules
that
govern
us
but
not
them.
Consequences
of
running
afoul
of
the
rules
are
ours,
not
theirs.
These
are
our
rules,
prolix
and
constipated
as
they
are.
In
the
age
in
which
we
now
find
ourselves,
with
the
increasing
dominance
of
AI’s
role,
do
we
really
need
to
have
so
many
rules?
Are
we
the
only
profession
that
has
so
many
rules?
Try
explaining
to
a
client
that
we
have
dual
responsibilities:
we
represent
clients
but
we
are
also
officers
of
the
court.
A
client
may
well
ask
who
comes
first?
Me
or
the
court?
While
normally
our
stock
in
trade
answer
is
“it
depends,”
if
a
client
says
that
he
is
going
to
perjure
himself,
the
answer
is
easy.
The
lawyer
must
withdraw.
If
the
client
does
not
understand
why,
then
that
may
say
something
about
client
selection.
But
in
other
situations,
the
rules
may
not
be
as
easy
to
explain.
Clients
are
not
interested
in
knowing
the
rules;
all
they
care
about
is
winning
the
case,
negotiating
an
advantageous
contract,
or
sometimes
just
putting
the
screws
to
the
adversary,
without
worrying
about
consequences. Clients
do
not
care
about
the
rules.
In
fact,
most
clients
do
not
even
know
that
the
rules
exist.
All
they
care
about
is
results,
results,
results,
and
how
much
they
will
pay
in
fees,
fees,
fees.
How
about
thorny
conflicts
issues?
Just
another
example
of
how
hard
it
is
to
explain
the
rules.
Explaining
what
conflicts
are,
how
they
can
arise,
whether
real
or
potential,
is
not
easy.
Explaining
conflicts
in
a
letter
that
requests
a
conflict
waiver
is
hard.
Even
harder
is
explaining
that
while
there
is
no
conflict
now,
one
could
arise
in
the
future,
and
then
the
situation
gets
even
murkier.
AI
explains
conflicts
like
this:
“Conflicts
of
Interest:
Avoiding
representation
that
is
adverse
to
another
client
or
significantly
limited
by
other
responsibilities
or
personal
interests
without
consent.”
Simple,
straightforward.
We
think
in
terms
of
both
“belt
and
suspenders.” Do
we
need
to
explain
every
possibly
bad
thing
that
could
happen?
We
lawyers
are
voices
of
doom
as
we
outline
all
the
possible
parade
of
horribles.
Are
our
clients
as
risk
averse?
I
know,
I
know,
the
Rules
of
Professional
Responsibility
are
established
to
protect
clients
from
unscrupulous,
lying,
cheating,
defrauding
lawyers.
But
do
they
really
do
that?
By
the
time
some
cases
get
into
the
discipline
system,
that
lawyer
is
enjoying
life
in
a
country
where
he
can’t
be
reached.
AI
does
simplify
the
rules
so
that
ordinary
people
can
understand
them
and
what
the
attorney’s
responsibilities
are.
Granted,
AI’s
explanations
do
not
include
all
nuances
and
implications,
but
they
do
provide
basic
information
that
clients
are
most
likely
to
encounter
in
the
attorney-client
relationship.
AI
explains,
in
plain
English,
such
important
client-facing
rules
as
competence,
confidentiality,
communication,
and
conflicts.
(the
four
Cs).
If
AI
can
help
explain
a
lawyer’s
responsibilities
to
clients
in
terms
that
are
easy
to
understand,
then
I
am
all
for
it.
We
twist
ourselves
into
pretzels
trying
to
explain
every
permutation
that
could
rise
in
a
representation.
Do
we
really
need
to
do
that
with
clients
who
need
our
help
untying
the
knots
in
which
they
have
found
themselves?
Is
it
confusing
to
the
client
who
feels
intimidated
by
seeking
legal
counsel
in
the
first
place
and
now
is
second-guessing
that
decision?
Is
that
the
desired
outcome?
I
have
always
thought
that
the
rules
are
cumbersome
and
unwieldy.
Let
the
ethics
experts
chat
among
themselves.
Lawyers
in
the
trenches
need
cogent
digestible
explanations
to
provide
to
clients.
And
yes,
while
I
do
agree
with
Joe
Patrice
the
AI
can
make
lawyers
dumber,
AI
can
help
even
dumb
lawyers
explain
important
attorney
client
concepts.
Is
there
any
reason
why
the
rules
couldn’t
be
simplified
with
the
help
of
AI?
Is
it
time
for
a
rewrite? Should
the
acronym
“KISS”
(not
the
band)
be
used
here?
Should
we
try
to
“keep
it
simple,
stupid?”
Your
thoughts?
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].