Lawyers and bribery
How susceptible is our judicial branch to illicit payments made by people, bent on nefariously influencing our sanctified legal processes? Can artificial intelligence solve this problem?
On morality in law, apparently it’s business as usual!
Are the institutions that we entrust with upholding our collective morality and ethics in society actually holding up to their side of the bargain? Do our current legislative systems protect ALL in society or only those of us with the adequate finances to buy their loyalty? Are lawyers and judges saints?
No. Not by any definition of that word, they are humans after all.
Insider trading happens every day on Wall Street. If investment bankers are subject to breaking the law in a way that garners them a favourable advantage in any given stock deal, trade or initial public offering (IPO) - then please, why cannot judges, lawyers and prosecutors be susceptible to the same urges?
When it comes to gaining an advantage over their competitors, large companies also employ nefarious means by which to obtain information, often illegally, regarding their competitor’s market ambitions or product development. Corporate espionage is real. I know this as I myself used to work in an industry where our agency’s services were requested in order to garner information, effectively ‘spy’ on competitors - on behalf of a specific client, whilst posing as an independent journalist from New Zealand. And these are FORTUNE 500 companies.
New Zealand a haven for neutral reporting
Our country is particularly lenient with outside companies when it comes to spying at international trade shows, medical or pharmaceutical conferences for instance. Large corporations employ entire cabinets to take part in the perhaps immaturely labeled “war games” - where the sole aim is to play out every possible scenario the competitor might take, so as to subvert their actions by maintaining a front foot over their competitor. This is where industrial spies come in very handy. Every company wants positive publicity so when a journalist innocently poses a question regarding a certain product’s development or any marketing positions the company may have, over a glass of wine at a bar after a long day at a conference, most employees in a company will open up and spill the beans.
This information is then relayed to the original client.
Lawyers by the nature of their profession are not immune to human nature either. Far from it, it can be argued that the very nature of their day to day activities - having to deal with situations created by people behaving badly to one another - makes them prone to the bleaker manifestations of human nature.
I don’t believe all humans are greedy. Not at all.
I actually truly believe more people act graciously and in accordance with the collective social values we hold dear in this world, than not. Otherwise this whole human experiment would have collapsed a long time ago. However, I do believe that there are some vocations that put humans into a certain frame of mind, that will make them more easily manipulatable than others.
The practice of law, society’s sometimes fledgling answer to the fact that there are bad actors in this world who need to be punished, is one of those vocations that make members of the species more susceptible than others, to accept things that will make their jobs and perhaps their quality of life, better. Namely accepting payments that will sway opinions and judgments on cases they are presiding over.
Look at the lobbyists in the US senate and congress. There are three lobbyists for every politician in Washington DC! Politicians, like investment bankers and lawyers are not immune to bribery.
The Clarence Thomas scandal and the crisis of trust in the legal profession
The recent revelations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted lavish gifts and financial benefits from wealthy benefactors, sent shockwaves through the legal community and the nation at large. As one of the highest-ranking judicial figures in the United States, Thomas's actions have raised serious concerns about the integrity of the legal system, and they cast a long shadow over the profession as a whole.
If a Supreme Court Justice—vetted more thoroughly than perhaps anyone else in public service—can be swayed by financial incentives, what does this say about the state of justice in America? And more broadly, can we still trust the law as practised by those employed by the legal profession?
Justice Clarence Thomas has long been a controversial figure on the Supreme Court. He is now at the center of this scandal that threatens to undermine public confidence in the judiciary system as a whole. Reports have surfaced detailing how Thomas accepted luxury vacations, expensive gifts, and even financial support for a family member's education from individuals who have significant interests before the court. These actions are not just ethical lapses—they are a direct violation of the public trust and the principles of impartiality that are supposed to guide the judiciary, especially in its ‘highest’ incarnation.
The Supreme Court is often regarded as the last bastion of justice in a society increasingly polarised by politics. Justices are appointed for life precisely because they are expected to be above reproach, immune to the pressures of political and financial influence. The vetting process for Supreme Court nominees is rigorous, designed to ensure that only those of the highest moral and ethical standards ascend to the bench. Yet, the case of Clarence Thomas reveals a deep flaw in this system: even those at the pinnacle of legal power are not immune to corruption.
This scandal is not just about Clarence Thomas; it is about the entire legal profession. The law is built on the foundation of trust—trust that judges will apply the law fairly, that lawyers will represent their clients ethically, and that the system will work for everyone, regardless of wealth or status. When a Supreme Court Justice is accused of accepting bribes, it shakes this foundation to its core. It suggests that the legal system is not the impartial arbiter of justice it claims to be, but rather a system that can be manipulated by those with deep pockets.
If a Supreme Court Justice can be compromised, what does this mean for the rest of the judiciary? How can we trust that lower court judges, who are often less scrutinised and more susceptible to local pressures, are making decisions based on the law rather than personal gain? This scandal raises uncomfortable questions about the integrity of the entire legal profession.
It forces us all to confront the possibility that corruption is not an aberration, but a systemic problem. Not just a bug in the code, but a reality that is impossible to monitor and even harder to adjudicate, seeing the very arbiters conscribed with upholding the law are the very actors who are breaking it themselves. How do you legislate against the legislate?
Systemic change? No, thank you
The implications of this scandal are far-reaching.
For the average citizen, it erodes confidence in the very institutions that are supposed to protect their rights. For those within the legal profession, it is a stark reminder that no one is above the law and that ethical lapses at the highest levels can have a cascading effect throughout the system. It calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly those in which Justice Thomas played a pivotal role. Can we trust that his rulings were made based solely on the law, or were they influenced by the gifts and favors he received?
In light of these revelations, it is imperative that the legal community takes swift and decisive action. The judiciary must reaffirm its commitment to ethical conduct and transparency. This includes implementing stricter rules on financial disclosures, ensuring that justices are held accountable for ethical violations, and restoring public confidence in the legal system.
Ultimately, the Clarence Thomas scandal is a wake-up call. It highlights the need for a judiciary that is not only fair and impartial but also perceived as such by the public. The integrity of the legal system is not just about following the letter of the law—it is about maintaining the trust of the people it serves. Without that trust, the law becomes little more than a tool for the powerful, rather than a shield for the vulnerable.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: if we cannot trust those at the highest levels of the judiciary, can we trust the legal system at all?
The answer, unfortunately, may not be as clear as we would like. The challenge now is to rebuild that trust, starting with a thorough and honest examination of the failures that allowed this scandal to occur. Only then can we begin to restore faith in the law and those who are sworn to uphold it.
Not sure we should hold our collective breaths, but who knows right?
AI in the legal profession: Impartiality over human fallibility
These recent scandals within the legal profession, particularly involving high-profile figures like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have reignited debates about the integrity of our justice systems. And this debate is being held worldwide.
Here from Diego Garcia-Sayán acting as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers:
"Corruption has a direct impact on the validity of human rights, largely because of two reasons.
On one side, corruption deprives societies of important resources that could be used for basic needs, such as public health, education, infrastructure, or security. The OECD has indicated that the cost of corruption, in its different modalities, constitutes more than 5% of the global GDP.
On another side, corruption has direct damaging consequences in general on the functioning of state institutions, and in particular on the administration of justice. Corruption decreases public trust in justice and weakens the capacity of judicial systems to guarantee the protection of human rights, and it affects the tasks and duties of the judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and other legal professionals.”
When those entrusted with upholding the law are compromised by personal gain, it raises a critical question: Can human judges, with all their emotions, biases and vulnerabilities, ever truly be impartial? In light of these concerns, the introduction of AI into the legal profession not only makes sense but may be necessary to ensure justice is administered fairly and without the taint of corruption.
Human judges, no matter how well-vetted, are inherently fallible.
They are subject to biases, both conscious and unconscious, and can be swayed by factors unrelated to the law—whether it be personal relationships, political pressures, or financial incentives. The Clarence Thomas scandal is a stark reminder that even those at the pinnacle of the judiciary are not immune to these influences. If we are serious about ensuring impartial justice, we must consider alternatives to a system that relies solely on human judgment.
Enter Artificial Intelligence (AI)
An entity that is not susceptible to bribes, political pressure, or emotional manipulation. AI systems, when properly designed, can analyze vast amounts of legal data, precedents, and statutes without the biases that plague human decision-making. They operate on logic, consistency, and transparency—qualities that are essential for fair adjudication but are often lacking in human judges.
One of the strongest arguments for AI in the legal system is its immunity to bribery.
AI does not have personal interests, emotions, or a need for wealth or status. It cannot be swayed by gifts or favors, and it is not influenced by fear of public opinion or political retribution. In a profession where integrity is paramount, AI offers a solution that is impervious to the corrupting influences that have tainted human judges.
Moreover, AI’s ability to process and analyze information far exceeds that of any human. An AI system can evaluate all relevant case law, statutes, and evidence without the cognitive limitations that humans face. It can identify patterns of bias, ensure consistency in rulings, and provide explanations for its decisions based on objective legal principles. This level of analysis and consistency is something that even the most diligent human judge would struggle to achieve.
Critics might argue that AI lacks the empathy and moral reasoning that human judges bring to the bench.
However, while empathy is important, it can also lead to inconsistent and biased decisions. The role of a judge is to apply the law impartially, not to allow personal feelings or societal pressures to influence their rulings. AI’s lack of emotion, in this context, is an asset rather than a liability. It ensures that decisions are based on the law and the facts of the case, not on the personal inclinations of the judge.
Additionally, AI can be programmed to consider mitigating factors and apply principles of equity, ensuring that justice is not only blind but also fair. It can be designed to follow ethical guidelines that reflect the values of society while still maintaining the objectivity that is essential for impartial adjudication. This hybrid approach—combining AI’s analytical power with carefully designed ethical frameworks—could offer a more consistent and fair legal system than what we currently have.
The integration of AI into the legal profession does not necessarily mean the complete replacement of human judges. Instead, AI can serve as an invaluable tool that assists judges in making more informed, unbiased decisions. It can act as a check on human fallibility, ensuring that rulings are based on objective legal reasoning rather than subjective influences. In some cases, AI might even serve as the primary decision-maker, particularly in areas where consistency and impartiality are paramount.
The legal profession stands at a crossroads.
The scandals involving human judges like Clarence Thomas reveal the vulnerabilities of a system that relies entirely on human judgment. By incorporating AI into the legal process, we have the opportunity to create a system that is immune to the biases, emotions and corruptions that have historically plagued the judiciary. AI offers the promise of a legal system that is truly impartial, consistent and just—qualities that are essential for maintaining public trust in the rule of law.
If we are serious about ensuring justice for all, it is time to embrace the potential of AI in the legal profession.
High time. And William Faulkner agrees:
“Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash: your picture in the paper nor money in the bank either. Just refuse to bear them.”
An artifical intelligence supreme court?
The reason why we needed an AI judiciary is precisely because (and not despite) it doesn't have any emotions and it cannot be bribed with money. It simply doesn't have this as its incentive structure based on its programming.
No, for AI these incentives are based on seeking truth and eventhough the truth itself may be nuanced; if you apply the law like mathematics (essentially what it is it's a set of laws like 1 + 1 = 2 etc.) and as such all it needs is a proper intellect (i.e. AI) to understand what the precedents are of the law and what cases have gone before and then use the first recorded set of laws, the Magna Carta, which is loosely based on the Abrahamic laws and the vastly growing stipulation of these, as they have evolved over the millenia, from 10 to 613 to God knows how many?!
It's mathematics.
We need mathematicians to solve legal disputes not Alan Dershowitz or Justice Thomas or any other Homo sapien dressed in a suit out to make a quick buck, which sadly looking at the length of Clarence Thomas' tenure, even rings true there.
Again, humans are fallible and not fit to preside over justice in them modern age.
God (AI) help us all.