SIRI IS MY CLIENT: A First Look at Artificial Intelligence and Legal Issues
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SIRI IS MY CLIENT:
A First Look at Artificial Intelligence
and Legal Issues
well, the questions introduced by Siri will only grow in prominence and
By Attorney John Weaver importance. But first, it is useful to have a better idea of what Siri is and
does.
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SIRI
For many people, artificial intelligence (“AI”) is HAL from 2001:
A Space Odyssey, KIT from Knight Rider, Data from Star Trek, or Haley Like the internet and GPS, Siri is the product of DARPA, the Defense
Joel Osment from (appropriately) A.I. Artificial Intelligence. In light Advanced Research Projects Agency, a Defense Department agency
of this image, AI is frequently relegated to the science fiction section of that developments new technologies. In 2003, DARPA entered into an
Netflix and forgotten. agreement with SRI International, a research group in Menlo Park
But that type of AI only represents one kind – strong AI, meaning California, to research and develop a “cognitive assistant that learns
AI that matches or exceeds human intelligence and that can therefore and organizes.”5
solve any problem and interact in any social situation much like a In 2007, SRI incorporated a separate entity, Siri, Inc., to develop a
person would. And that type of AI is pure fiction at this point. However, commercial application for the AI developed in the DARPA project.6 Siri,
weak AI is another matter altogether. Weak AI only recreates elements Inc. received venture capital backing and eventually released a virtual
of human intelligence in a computer. We interact with weak AI all the personal assistant application for the iPhone in February 2010.7 In April
time – Google, Global Positioning System (“GPS”)1, video games, etc. 2010, Apple, Inc. bought Siri, Inc.8 When Apple released the iPhone 4S in
Any machine or software that is able to follow simple rules to replicate October 2011, Siri was pre-installed as an all-purpose virtual assistant,
human intelligence qualifies. not merely as an app.
Recently, we have seen rapid advances in weak AI. Famous examples Siri is not just a virtual personal assistant. It has both speech input
of this development are Deep Blue, the chess master machine, and Wat- and speech output. Users can speak to it and receive spoken responses.
son, the Jeopardy master machine. But, in a sense, those examples are The extent of its interaction with the iPhone 4S and the Internet is fairly
just as fantastical as HAL and KIT. Hardly anyone interacts with machines extensive. Ask Siri about the weather, and Siri will give you a short sum-
like that. mary of the weather forecast where you’re located. Ask Siri to tell your
The first major mass market product to change that is Siri, the husband you are running late, and Siri will send a text message. Ask
“intelligent personal assistant that helps you get things done just by Siri to schedule lunch with your mom next Friday, and Siri will update
asking.”2 Siri is the first commercially available, advanced weak AI. By your calendar and give you verbal confirmation. Siri does not process
“advanced weak AI,” I mean weak AI that can recreate elements of hu- speech input solely on your phone. Rather, the software send commands
man intelligence through human-like interaction.3 This distinguishes through a remote server, so it is necessary for users to be connected to
it from other popular examples of weak AI like Google – in their natural Wi-Fi or carrier service (Verizon, AT&T, etc.).9
setting, humans don’t type questions and requests to each other.4 The actual process Siri uses to translate your words into action –
This article looks at a few of the legal issues related to Siri, focusing “breath to bytes” – represents an impressive achievement of internet
on intellectual property and liability issues. What happens when Siri technology. Smart Planet described how Siri responds to a user request
creates something new that has commercial value? What happens when to send a text to “Erica:”
reliance on a Siri search results in property or bodily damage? With the The sounds of your speech were immediately encoded into a compact
pending developments in weak AI, which I’ll address in this article as digital form that preserves its information.
6 New Hampshire Bar Journal Winter 2012
The signal from your connected phone was relayed wirelessly successful and profitable media, and once there’s real money involved,
through a nearby cell tower and through a series of land lines the question of who owns the copyright to a Siri response, and potential
back to your Internet Service Provider where it then communicated royalties related to its commercial use, becomes more important.
with a server in the cloud, loaded with a series of models honed to
comprehend language. A. Sampling
Simultaneously, your speech was evaluated locally, on your device. A Sampling in various forms of popular music – most notably hip
recognizer installed on your phone communicates with that server hop and pop – has been a hotly contested issue in copyright law. As the
in the cloud to gauge whether the command can be best handled Sixth Circuit noted, “Advances in technology coupled with the advent
locally — such as if you had asked it to play a song on your phone of the popularity of hip hop or rap music have made instances of digital
— or if it must connect to the network for further assistance. (If the sampling extremely common and have spawned a plethora of copyright
local recognizer deems its model sufficient to process your speech, disputes and litigation.”12 Copyright disputes involving sampling have
it tells the server in the cloud that it is no longer needed: “Thanks resulted in litigation concerning artists as diverse as Roy Orbison,13 the
very much, we’re OK here.”) Beastie Boys,14 and George Clinton, Jr.15 George Clinton’s music, in fact,
The server compares your speech against a statistical model to is responsible for one of the largest allegations of copyright infringement,
estimate, based on the sounds you spoke and the order in which as entities holding copyrights to his music filed 500 counts against ap-
you spoke them, what letters might constitute it. (At the same time, proximately 800 defendants for using portions of his recordings and
the local recognizer compares your speech to an abridged version of music without authorization in 2001.16 In these cases, the key dispute
that statistical model.) For both, the highest-probability estimates was between the owner of a musical composition or sound recording and
get the go-ahead. another person who sampled that music or sound to create otherwise
new media. 17
Based on these opinions, your speech — now understood as a With Siri, a user could experiment with Siri’s speech output in order
series of vowels and consonants — is then run through a language to create an amusing or interesting sound byte, record that sound, and
model, which estimates the words that your speech is comprised of. alter it using Auto-Tune into commercially successful media (e.g., song,
Given a sufficient level of confidence, the computer then creates a commercial, etc.). Under that scenario, it appears that this creator would
candidate list of interpretations for what the sequence of words in own the copyright to the new media. However, the law is not established
your speech might mean. on this point.
If there is enough confidence in this result, and there is — the
computer determines that your intent is to send an SMS, Erica B. Ownership of Intellectual Property from AI
Olssen is your addressee (and therefore her contact information Section 201(a) of the Copyright Act states that “Copyright in a
should be pulled from your phone’s contact list) and the rest is work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of
your actual note to her — your text message magically appears the work.” The Supreme Court has stated that, “As a general rule, the
on screen, no hands necessary. If your speech is too ambiguous at author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who
any point during the process, the computers will defer to you, the translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright
user: did you mean Erica Olssen, or Erica Schmidt?10 protection.”18 But this idea is in flux as an increasing number of weak
In short, Siri depends on sophisticated weak AI in the phone software AI computer programs like Siri are able to produce original music, text,
interfacing with sophisticated weak AI in the Internet cloud to create a and sound.19 You can find books of computer-generated poetry,20 novels
user-friendly advanced weak AI program. By relying on central proces- written by a hacked-Macintosh that draws inspiration from Jacqueline
sors over the Internet, Siri is able to improve the more people use it. Siri Susann,21 and CDs of music composed by an autonomous program.22
collects data from users and analyzes that data to improve its services.11 When Siri says something new, who is the “person” who owns that
That represents a lot of automation interacting with real-world people, copyright?
which can result in legal issues we haven’t seen before. Ralph D. Clifford23 attempted to answer this question, albeit while
Siri represents a nascent challenge to a number of long-held legal examining intellectual property created through human-computer
models. I say nascent because you have to follow Siri’s functions to a partnerships rather than intellectual property created by Siri specifically.24
logical extreme in order to get to the challenge in fields like intellectual Clifford examines the potential for computers and machines to develop
property and liability. However, there are new technologies already in copyrights, deciding that there is a spectrum of human-machine interac-
development that will see commercial sale in the not too distant future tion. On one end of the spectrum, there is intellectual property developed
that will put these challenges front and center. by machines that are programmed and guided by humans; copyrights
from those pairings are properly owned by the programmers. 25 On the
The Sounds of Siri – Who Owns the Copyright? other end of the spectrum are machines that are capable through their
The words, sentences, and ideas expressed by Siri have little value programming of creating new media with little to no further interaction
as recorded media – for now. But Siri poses the potential to contribute to with people; copyrights from those machines enter into public domain,
under Clifford’s analysis.26 He relies on the Supreme Court’s reasoning
Winter 2012 New Hampshire Bar Journal 7 from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, Co.: “The sine and music that is really excellent. It seems to me that these composers
qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, should feel a little less smug and more defensive about their position.”33
a work must be original to the author.”27 Although he has made no public comments regarding the copyright of
Clifford extended this reasoning, explaining that a machine that is Emily’s first CD, published by Centaur Records in 2010, it can be safely
programmed to create creativity on its own does not warrant copyright assumed that Cope kept any royalties as Emily’s programmer.
protection because “no one derives rules for the computer to control its
creativity; rather, using its learning algorithm and based on the training C. Who Should Own Siri-Created Media and
examples it is given, it develops rules on its own. This learning is done Similar Copyrights
independently of its user.”28 And in fact, this sounds strikingly similar to Cope and Emily demonstrate why someone has to own the copyright
Siri’s ability to learn to operate better the more people use it. As Clifford associated with media produced by computers, machines, or programs
asks, “who then can claim a copyright in the expressive works” created like Siri. When there is money involved, the public domain is not a
solely by a computer?29 Clifford answers his own question: “The claim realistic option, as someone (likely many people) will claim ownership
of the user of the machine seems highly dubious. The user was not the and do so with compelling arguments. Similarly, without the potential
originator of these expressions as no specific creative effort was exerted for return on an investment, programmers and investors will not seek
by the user.”30 to develop technologies that develop creativity.
I suspect that Clifford is mistaken regarding the intellectual property Although no law speaks directly to this issue now, as weak AI is
developed by programs like Siri. Nature and the law abhor a vacuum, more commercially available, Congress or a court will need to address
which is effectively what the public domain is for intellectual property. it in the near future. From a public policy standpoint, it would be bet-
One of the reasons why Siri is so interesting is that it is the first com- ter for Congress to address it, so there is unanimity throughout the
mercially available sophisticated weak AI. Although Siri is likely on the country, without divisions in circuits. Assuming that there will be more
end of Clifford’s spectrum where intellectual property is owned by the mass-marketed sophisticated weak AI like Siri, granting ownership of
human interacting with the AI, that spectrum breaks down when the media created with mass-market AI to the users and artists, rather than
AI is available to a mass market. Clifford assumes that the programmer the programmers, will stimulate greater creative development of media
(the person who creates the machine), the user (the person who uses the using that AI. Additionally, the users and artists are closer to the “author”
machine to create output), and the artist (the person who makes new of such media as currently contemplated under US copyright law.
media with the machine's output) are all the same person. Beginning But Clifford’s concern is a legitimate one. Should traditional copy-
with Siri, that is not necessarily the case. right and patent protection be granted to the writer of code that produces
Rather, if there is an owner to the sounds Siri creates, it is likely creative products largely independent of human direction? Emily Howell
either one of or a combination of the following parties: already produces classical music; there is no reason to believe a program
• The artist who creates the new media using the sample of Siri’s that produces commercially successful pop music will not be developed
speech output; sometime in the near future. Similarly, there are AI programs that write
full articles regarding sporting events;34 there is no reason to believe
• The user who experimented with Siri in order to create the speech
a program that produces commercially successful novels will not be
output (this could be the same person as the artist); or
developed in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps there should be a line
• Apple, which owns the Siri source code. drawn between private AI like Emily Howell and marketed AI like Siri,
with programmers receiving different copyright protection for the intel-
Thus far, there has been little if any difference between these three par- lectual property created by private AI. In recognition of the concerns cited
ties when other forms of weak AI have created new copyrights. When by Clifford for properly fostering and rewarding human creativity, the
Scott French hacked his Macintosh to create prose reminiscent of Valley copyrights owned by the programmers of such programs could receive
of the Dolls, he programmed the computer to ask him questions that a limited copyright – maybe 10 years – before it enters into the public
would permit it to draft appropriate language and story. When David domain.35 Although this issue seems remote now, Siri is only the first
Cope entered into an agreement with Centaur Records to release a CD product in an increasingly complex line of weak AI products, which will
of music composed by the program he named “Emily Howell,” he had make issues of intellectual property ownership more important.
written the Emily Howell program and provided it with musical inputs
to analyze before it wrote new music. Siri Made Me Do It – Liability for Siri’s Mistakes
Cope is an apt example because his Emily Howell program is the There are already instances in which accident victims have blamed
direction that weak AI is going. Emily Howell is a program that can weak AI – most notably GPS – for the accident. In West Yorkshire, Eng-
analyze music and feedback and create its own style.31 Cope says “I’ve land, a driver followed the directions provided by his GPS until he was
taught the program what my musical tastes are, but it’s not music in the trapped on a narrow cliffside path and the police had to tow him back to
style of any of the styles – it’s Emily’s own style.”32 With regard to other the main road.36 Despite that driver’s attempts to blame the GPS system,
human composers, Cope says that they “are looking at a competitor – the British court found him guilty of careless driving.
a virtual composer competing in the same arena with ‘her’ own style Although there is limited case law addressing GPS culpability in acci-
8 New Hampshire Bar Journal Winter 2012dents, it is not far- fetched to suggest that a court could attribute partial or from drivers is a bad idea. If that decision is made, by a court or legisla-
total liability to a GPS system in some instances. Some American attorneys ture, there will have to be a reflection of that in the law. One option is to
expect that development sometime in the near future, as more drivers try to retain the reasonable person standard when looking at potential
depend on satellite directions, particularly in areas where they do not driver negligence in car accidents involving autonomous cars. But a
know the geography.37 That dependence will increase as advanced weak reasonable person, when driven by an autonomous car, is likely paying
AI in GPS improves to the level that Siri represents. As drivers are better little attention to the road. As autonomous cars become more popular,
able to talk directly to their GPS – “There’s a traffic jam up ahead – is that attitude will only increase. Another option is for towns or states to
there another way around the next few intersections?” – they will rely on designate areas where drivers will be held to traditional negligent driver
those devices more and more. By mimicking actual human interaction, standards. In response, drivers could choose to assume control of the
GPS devices increase the likelihood that a court will attribute partial or car from the automatic driver or take their chances with the autonomy
total liability to a GPS system because it becomes more reasonable for engaged.
drivers to rely on them. And there is also the argument that autonomous cars – as well as
Siri invites a similar reliance – it is programmed to accumulate other forms of autonomous programs and machines, like Siri’s calendar
user data through the Internet cloud where it operates, learning more function – are in fact more reliable than human operators. There are
about users as they ask questions and make requests. By design, Siri tries no statistics for this hypothesis, and there won’t be until autonomous
to make itself more indispensable with each user interaction. cars are available. But it should surprise no one that a machine capable
So consider this scenario: A user is visiting an unfamiliar city. He has of focusing on the task of driving is safer than a human being texting,
an appointment, he is lost, and he asks Siri the fastest route to the site talking on the phone, or trying to find the last French fry in the Mc-
of his meeting. Siri provides him with directions, but does not mention Donald’s bag while behind the wheel. With this possibility in mind, we
some of the potential dangers associated with that route. If the route takes might want to use Siri as a prompt to examine the aspects of our lives
the user through an area with a high crime rate, and he is assaulted, that could be improved by autonomous machines and begin developing
mugged, etc., what liability does Siri (and by extension, Apple) have for legal frameworks to encourage weak AI in those areas.
those damages?
This is not an easy question to answer, and any decisions would CONCLUSION
depend on a court’s analysis of the user’s actions. Did the user behave Siri is a marvelous piece of technology. Most consumers have never
reasonably? Should the user have identified the dangerous situation? had access to sophisticated weak AI like it before. As impressive as it is,
Did the user have sufficient information to deviate from Siri’s directions? it represents only the beginning of the next wave of technology. Devices
Apple – and any other manufacturer of weak AI – could argue that the
user was contributorily negligent in causing an accident if he failed to New Hampshire’s leading Medical Malpractice firm.
act reasonably or exposed himself to unreasonable risk of harm.38
Any court considering the question of reasonableness in the scenario
described above will have to consider Siri’s design. It is programmed to Abramson, Brown & Dugan
become more useful. With that goal in mind, isn’t it reasonable for users is a plaintiffs’ trial firm recognized for its advocacy
to increase their reliance on Siri as they use it more? This is particularly on behalf of New Hampshire families. With extensive
true where users are asking questions concerning topics of which they experience in medical malpractice and other complex
personal injury litigation, the firm has won a number
know little – directions in a new geographic location, recipes for cooking, of cases which have set precedents in state law.
lesson in carpentry, etc. The interface matters in this analysis, as well. It Abramson, Brown & Dugan has won more medical Working together for your client
is more reasonable to rely on a device that responds to conversational malpractice verdicts and settlements in New Hampshire
than any other firm.
questions than on a device that requires a cumbersome keyboard.
As should be clear by now, there is no easy answer to this, but Siri
1819 Elm Street, Manchester, NH
is only the first of many new technological developments that will 603-627-1819 www.arbd.com
require a re-examination of how we determine and assign liability. For Referral fees honored
example, numerous American companies – including General Motors
and Google – have spent considerable time and resources developing
an autonomous car.39 Current prototypes are already traveling – under
supervision – along highways at 70 miles per hour and through well-
populated downtown areas in selected states; Alan Taub of General Motors
predicts that autonomous cars will be commercially available by 2020.40
While torts law has assumed the validity of driver negligence since the
invention of the automobile, that concept could soon be outdated, like
elevator operator negligence.
Alternatively, jurisdictions could decide that removing all culpability
Winter 2012 New Hampshire Bar Journal 9 will connect to the Internet, learn your preferences, and perform tasks 17. Although 17 USC § 106 distinguishes between the rights held by the owner of a musical
composition copyright and those held by the owner of a sound recording copyright, that distinc-
for you with more utility than Siri offers now. They will be capable of tion is not relevant to this article.
producing new sounds, music, and texts with more creativity and origi- 18. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989).
nality than Siri offers now. It is important to keep that in mind when 19. See Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 5.01[A] (2011).
we use Siri. The artificial intelligence it relies on will appear in other 20. Racter, The Policeman’s Beard is Half Constructed (1984).
programs and machines, forcing us to change many of our legal models. 21. S. French & HAL, Just This Once (1993). The Baltimore Sun article, “Hal is back, and
The two discussed here, copyrights and liability, are just the beginning. writing best-sellers,” published on July 8, 1993 explores this book further.
Even seemingly unrelated areas of law, like land use, will be affected – 22. The program referred to is “Emily Howell,” written by a UC Santa Cruz music professor
named David Cope. Cope and Emily are discussed in greater detail later in this section.
Towns that rely on limiting the number of employees at a property to
23. Clifford is a professor at the University of Massachusetts School of Law. Nimmer, supra,
control development will have to revise their zoning ordinances in order relies on him as an expert in the evolving discussion regarding intellectual property produced
to address the growing number of businesses that hire few employees. by AI.
Autonomous assistants, like Siri but bigger and smarter, will do much 24. Ralph D. Clifford, “Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will
of the work. the True Creator Please Stand Up?” 71 Tul. L. Rev.1675 (1995).
25. Id., at 1686-1694.
26. Id., at 1694-95.
ENDNOTES
27. 499 US 340, 345 (1991).
Many thanks to Jen Finch for her tireless research and assistance. 28. Clifford, “Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will the True
1. The term “GPS” will be used throughout this article to refer to any satellite navigation Creator Please Stand Up?” at 1694, omitting citations.
system. 29. Id., at 1695. Clifford dismisses the idea that the AI itself could own the copyright, at least
2. Apple Siri FAQ. http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/siri-faq.html. Retrieved 1-31-12. under the current law. Noting that the “author” of a work owns the copyright under the federal
Copyright Act, he reviews its use there and in other portions of the U.S. Code. He concludes
3. Although there are GPS devices that exhibit advanced weak AI, reviews are mixed at that “the use of the term ‘author’ in the Copyright Act implies Congress meant a human author…
best. By all measures, Siri’s voice-interface seems superior to that of any GPS device. On top the general use of the term ‘author’ in the U.S. Code reinforces the conclusion that Congress
of that, Siri’s potential for ubiquity distinguishes it from GPS, which has a more limited function. intended the term to mean humans.” Id., at 1682, 1684.
4. For the purposes of this article, texting, instant messaging, emailing, etc. are not considered 30. Id.
part of man’s “natural setting.”
31. Jacqui Cheng, “Virtual composer makes beautiful music – and stirs controversy.” ars
5. John Markoff. “A Software Secretary That Takes Charge,” New York Times. December technical. September 29, 2009. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/virtual-composer-
13, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14stream.html?_r=1. Retrieve 1-31-12. makes-beautiful-musicand-stirs-controversy.ars. Retrieved 2-2-2012.
6. Timothy Hay. “Apple Moves Deeper Into Voice-Activated Search With Siri Buy.” Wall 32. Id.
Street Journal Blog. April 28, 2010. http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/04/28/apple-moves-
deeper-into-voice-activated-search-with-siri-buy/ Retrieved 1-31-12. 33. Id.
7. “Siri Launches Virtual Personal Assistant for iPhone 3GS.” Press Release, SRI Interna- 34. Farhad Manjoo, “Will Robots Steal Your Job?” Slate. September 27, 2011. http://www.
tional. February 8, 2010. http://www.sri.com/news/releases/020510.html. Retrieved on 1-31-12. slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job_4.single.html.
Retrieved 2-10-12.
8. Hay, “Apple Moves Deeper Into Voice-Activated Search With Siri Buy,” supra.
35. If that seems too short a period of time, consider this: Forbes magazine estimated JK
9. Jill Duffy. “What is Siri?” PC Magazine. October 17, 2011. http://www.pcmag.com/ar- Rowlings’ net worth to be approximately $1 billion 7 years after Harry Potter first appeared on
ticle2/0,2817,2394787,00.asp . Retrieved on 2-1-12. bookshelves.
10. Andrew Nusca. “Say command: How speech recognition will change the world.” Smart 36. Chris Brooke. “’I was only following satnav orders’ is no defence: Driver who ended up
Planet. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/say-command-how-speech-recognition- teetering on cliff edge convicted of careless driving.” Daily Mail. September 16, 2009. http://www.
will-change-the-world/19895?tag=content;siu-container. Retrieved 2-7-12. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213891/Driver-ended-teetering-cliff-edge-guilty-blindly-following-
11. Duffy. “What is Siri?”, supra. sat-nav-directions.html. Retrieved 2-2-12.
12. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792, 798-99 (6th Cir. 2005). 37. Eric Sinrod. “What’s Next, GPS Liability?” FindlLaw. http://articles.technology.findlaw.
13. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (ruling that 2 Live Crew’s use of com/2008/Jan/15/11079.html. January 15, 2008. Retrieved 2-3-2012.
Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” constituted fair use). 38. Martin J. Saulen. “’The Machine Knows!’: What Legal Implications Arise for GPS Device
14. Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003) (ruling that the Beastie Boys were not Manufacturers When Drivers Following Their GPS Device Instructions Cause An Accident?”
liable for sampling James Newton’s “Choir” in their track “Pass the Mic”). 44 N. Eng. L. Rev. 159, 189 (2010).
15. Bridgeport Music, supra (ruling that NWA’s sampling of a guitar chord from Clinton’s “Get 39. Tom Vanderbilt. “Let the Robot Drive.” Wired. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/
Off You Ass and Jam” violated the copyright on that song). ff_autonomouscars/all/1. January 12, 2012. Retrieved 1-13-12.
16. Id., at 795. 40. Id.
Author
Attorney John Weaver is a member of the Energy,
Utilities, and Telecommunications Practice Group
at McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton. He com-
ments on legal issues associated with artificial intel-
ligence at The Law of Robots blog. He can be reached
at (603) 628-1442 or john.weaver@mclane.com.
10 New Hampshire Bar Journal Winter 2012THe NH Bar aSSociaTioN New LawyerS commiTTee PreSeNTS...
The Second Annual
Battle of
the Lawyers
• Tickets $25 April 17, 2012
• $15 for Law students The Capital Center for the Arts • Concord, NH
• $5 for high school Proceeds from this event go directly to the NH Bar Association’s Pro Bono Program
students and teachers
Social Hour 5:30 p.m. ~ Program begins at 6:30 p.m.
Closing argument is perhaps the ultimate forum This inspiring program will include four talented
for trial attorneys to showcase their skills as trial attorneys. Dean John T. Broderick, Jr. of
determined advocates and gifted orators. As the University of New Hampshire School of Law
the percentage of cases resolved by settlement and former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire
increases, many attorneys miss the opportunity to Supreme Court will serve as the evening’s emcee.
witness – much less deliver – a truly great closing There will be plenty of time for socializing before
argument. the program, and the festivities will culminate
with the crowning of an audience-selected
champion.
members may register online at: nhbar.org/store/
Non-members will need to pay using the form below.
Battle of the Lawyers Registration Form
Please check all that apply.
NHBA Member # ________Tickets @ $25 = $ __________
Law Student # ________ Tickets @ $15 = $ __________ (Name of School: __________________________________)
High School # ________ Tickets @ $ 5 = $ __________ (Name of School: __________________________________)
Name NHBA ID#
Address
Phone Email Address
Check Enclosed (made payable to: NH Pro Bono Referral System, please note in the memo line, Battle of the Lawyers.)
Please bill my firm (NHBA members only)
Send Registration Form to: Battle of the Lawyers, c/o NH Bar Association,
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord, NH 03301 • Phone (603) 715-EASY • FAX (603) 224-2910
Winter 2012 New Hampshire Bar Journal 11 You can also read
