AI attorney is no match for human attorney

A lot is being written on artificial intelligence (AI) and its use in law. A court opinion from February illuminates its “use” in an employment case and the disastrous consequences.

I.O.U. instead of wages

Molly Kruse went to work for Indigo Three, Ltd., as a creative director in 2015. She agreed to accept—in lieu of a paycheck—promissory notes. She was fired in October 2019, never having been paid, with only a handful of worthless paper for her efforts. (Now you know what “not worth the paper it’s printed on” means.)

Kruse sued for her unpaid wages and was awarded more than $311,000. Our story begins with the appeal that followed.

Consultant takes on appeal

Unable to find a lawyer, the owner of the company located a California-based consultant to file an appeal. The cost was less than 1% of what the owner would pay for a lawyer. What a deal! And the company’s brief included such gems as the following:

For instance, in Smith v. ABC Corporation, 321 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. 2010), the Court of Appeals held that it had the duty to review the grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, stating that “the appellate court should not be bound by the trial court’s determination and must reach its own conclusion based on the record.”