ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - A R G U M E N T S

The prevailing legal precedents forbid the practice of law from being extended to the products and entities of
artificial intelligence.
 The Constitution grants the Court the power to regulate the legal profession. The Rules of
Court provide that only natural persons may practice law
 Jurisprudence has held that the privilege to practice
law is an exclusive, personal right


It would be impractical to allow machine entities such as A.Is. in the practice of law because of the ethical
concerns it presents, that leads to the detriment of the legal profession
 Artificial Intelligence poses many ethical
questions and existential dilemmas. Notwithstanding the gains that AI offers, it gives disruption to the legal
profession. The practice of law still necessitates human interaction. 



CORE ARGUMENT
 the prevailing legal precedents forbid the practice of law from being 
 extended to the
products and entities of artificial intelligence.
The main point of argumentation that the Respondents proposes is that it would be impractical to open the
practice of law to artificial entities such as robots, machines, or A.Is., because the current and standing doctrines
laid out by the Court prohibit the legal profession from being extended to such entities. Essentially, this is
because the right to perform the intricate practices of law can only be granted to natural persons.
Further, the Respondents propose that it would be impractical to allow machine entities such as artificial
intelligence (AI) in the practice of law on the basis of the ethical concern it presents that lead to the disruption of
the legal profession.

The Constitution grants the Court the power to regulate the legal profession
To lay out the premises, according to the 1987 Constitution, it is the Supreme Court who has the 1 absolute
power to regulate the practice of law. According to Article VIII, Section 5, the Supreme Court shall have, among
others, the following powers:
The 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5 (5)1

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged…
Being that it is only the Supreme Court alone, which has the right to regulate the admission and practice of the
legal profession, the standards of the practice of law may only be established as in the cases and doctrines laid
out by the Court in its Rules and jurisprudence. The next discussions will cover the rules that permeate our
arguments.
The Rules of Court provide that only natural persons may practice law The rules that currently regulate the legal
profession are found in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides for the sections on Attorneys and
Admission to Bar. 2
Section 1. Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
Under the Rules of the Supreme Court, only persons may be admitted as members of the Bar. This is clear and
not open to interpretation, but for further discussion, let us assume otherwise.

The 1997 Rules of Court, Rule 138. Attorneys and Admission to Bar.2
Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence
of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines. This rule actually discusses two important concepts that cannot be
related to artificial entities. The first is citizenship, which is the status of a person recognized under the custom or
law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. 3
Citizenship is a concept that is presently alien to robots. As of our age, only persons may acquire citizenship.
Further, as of our laws, it is definitely true again that only persons may acquire citizenship.
The second is a legal concept which is known as good moral character. To elaborate its definition, as mentioned
in People v. Lee, character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals,
distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common
report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. 


Shue, Henry (1950). Basic Rights.3 The 1987 Constitution, Article IV. Citizenship.4 People v.
Good moral character includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are
common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good
among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen;
that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
It is clear then that good moral character is a moral and ideal element which are only inherent in humans and
cannot be acquired by robots.
Thus, by analogy, we may suppose that robots, having no citizenship nor good moral character, assuming
arguendo that they may be considered persons, still cannot practice law because of the lacking qualifications
that are necessary for admission to the practice of law.
Jurisprudence has held that the privilege to practice law is an exclusive, personal right.

It has been consistently held in a line of cases that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in
court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and advising clients as to their legal
rights and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court.
Id.7 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, BM No. 553, Jun 17, 1993.8 Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., P. 39, in
Ulep.9
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law, and such limitation cannot be
evaded by a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it.
Ulep specifically maintains that the practice of law can, may, and should only be practiced by natural persons, as
contrasted with those juridical persons. This principle enunciates that the right (though actually privilege) to
practice law is only exclusive to natural persons.
Additionally, as supplied by the Civil Code, birth determines personality, and as far as knowledge in science and
legal fiction goes, only humans or natural persons can be born.
In such case, that was the scheme or device by which, a juridical person, "The Legal Clinic, Inc." held out itself
to the public to solicit employment of its legal services. It is an odious vehicle for

deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance for malpractice against the business
conduit.
A corollary point to raise in this discussion is that one of the tenets of the legal profession is its close connection
to the public service, and that the general public must have a right to grieve in its potential malpractice. In
introducing the practice of law to artificial entities, there is no guarantee that the public would be afforded
protection from their malpractice, thereby they cannot be allowed to enter into the public service.

Id.10 Civil Code of the Philippines, Chapter 2. Natural Persons, Article 40. 11 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, BM No. 553,
Jun 17, 1993.12
Precisely, the limitation of practice of law to persons who have been duly admitted as members of the Bar is to
subject the members to the discipline of the Supreme Court.
The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to another. It is
a personal right limited to persons who have qualified themselves under the law. The right to practice law is
personal. It cannot be assigned or delegated. Such is the sophistication of such privilege. It cannot be easily
given or passed, and must only be granted to persons who are duly qualified.
Additionally, the practice of law, being a public service, and being an intricate and sophisticated practice, should
be protected from unqualified entities. This important argument is also extensively discussed in Ulep. According
to the U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle, in resolving the issues before this Honorable Court in Ulep, paramount
consideration should be given to the protection of the general public from the danger of being, exploited by
unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged in the practice of law.
The public nature of the legal profession connotes that every person, in the exercise of his rights, must be
assisted by competent counsel, and such competency may only be set by the standards established by the
Court and law.
Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court.13 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, BM No. 553, Jun 17, 1993.14

At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on top of a four-year
bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer
qualified to practice law.
Marginally, legal education is also another requirement to the admission and practice of law, which also, is alien
to artificial entities. Persons are educated. Robots are programmed. There is a clear and distinct difference
between the two concepts - education and programming. If the law states in unequivocal terms that persons who
desire to practice law must be educated, such must be conformed to without construction.

CORE ARGUMENT
 It would be impractical to allow machine entities such as A.Is. in the practice of law
because 
 of the ethical concerns it presents, that leads to the detriment of the legal profession. 


Artificial Intelligence poses many ethical questions and existential dilemmas.

The artificial intelligence or commonly known as AI, according to Britannica, is “the ability of a digital computer or
computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.”I tis said to make the
lives of every individual become easier. However advantageous it may seem, AI still poses many ethical
questions and existential dilemmas. A lot of philosophers, including scientists, have raised the ethical concerns
vis-à-vis AI. In the book entitled “Super intelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies” by the Swedish Philosopher
Nick Bostom published in 2014, it posits that AI could become a super intelligent entity which may outwit human
intelligence. He further proposes that this object would later become overpowering, hence, leading to a human
existential upheaval. Philosopher John Searle also opposes the idea of AI. In his famous 15Chinese Room
Argument, he noted that it is illogical to have an idea of an intelligent nonbiological entity. 
 16

Ben-Ari, Daniel, Yael Firsh, Adam Lazovski, Uriel Eldan and Dov Greenbaum. 2016. “Danger, Will 15
Robinson”? Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law: An Analysis and Proof of Concept Experiment.”
Richmond Journal of Law and Technology Vol., Issue 2, pp. 11 Id.16
The point of his argument does not mean that computers are incapable of discerning. Rather, it points out that a
program cannot provide consciousness or understanding. This will lead us to the following existential questions
which are pointed out by Daniel Ben-Ari and et al.: Can machines have, or act as though they have human
intelligence? And if so, then do they have a mind? If they have a conscience or self-awareness, do they have
rights? Consciousness relates to abilities of understanding and thinking. Nevertheless, consciousness is still a
widely unknown concept. Should a machine be aware of its mental state and actions? Can it be aware? Is it
even relevant?
Can minds be artificially created? And how about free will? Even in some fields of philosophy, it is debatable
whether humans have free will, so how does it reflect on artificial entities? And if we consider AI entities as
entities with consciousness or minds, then does it become immoral to dismantle them? And then how do we
program them with an understanding of right and wrong? 17
In other words, this contention emphasizes that there is a great danger that poses when it comes to heavy
reliance on technological capabilities. If humans are prone to error, so does an artificial entity. As pointed out by
Wendy Chang, an American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
member, “In using technology, lawyers must understand the technology that they are using to assure
themselves they are doing so in a way that complies with their ethical obligations—and that the advice the client
receives is the result of the lawyer’s independent judgment. [...] In the end, lawyers cannot ignore their ethical
obligations or abdicate
duties of professional responsibility to technology.” 18 Id.17 Id.18
Notwithstanding the gains that AI offers, it gives disruption to the legal profession.
Although AI embraces the forthcoming of man’s wellbeing, it poses looming threats to all, including the legal
profession. The legal profession, i.e. judges, lawyers and legal education, encounters a disturbance due to the
progression of AI machinery. Lawyers will turn into a 19vanishing professional as AI could do the works of a
lawyer - structure claims, check contracts for problematic caveats, negotiate deals, predict legal strategies, and
more. In some cases, they 20are still needed. Yet, instead of concentrating on litigations and contracts, they will
mainly focus on risk engineering. Lawyers are still essential up until AI could assimilate the data into a subtle
analysis which involves a higher form of thinking. 21
However, in the time to come, the most skilled litigators and lawyers will soon become unnecessary as AI will
eventually learn to outdo their successful strategies. Young associates then become superfluous as their works
are achievable by machine. Moreover, AI is messing 22up the legal ecosystem itself. In a report by The
Financial Times, it claims that the “Change 23[from AI] is being driven not only by demand from clients but also
by competition from accounting firms, which have begun to offer legal services and to use technology to do
routine work. 


Ibid, pp. 40.19 Ibid, pp. 37.20 Id.21 Ibid, pp. 37-8.22 Ferose, VR and Lorien Pratt. 2018. How AI Is Disrupting
The Law. A pril 03. Accessed September 16, 23 2018. https://www.digitalistmag.com/digital-
economy/2018/04/03/ai-is-disrupting-law-06030693.
‘Lawtech’ startups, often set up by ex-lawyers and so-called because they use technology to streamline or
automate routine aspects of legal work, are a threat too.” By using this argument, it leads to the following
consideration: If computers, i.e. AI, could do the works of a lawyer - examining a case, analyzing issues it raises,
conducting legal research and even deciding on a strategy, what is now the essence of undergoing the rigorous
process in becoming a lawyer? One would not risk his life undergoing such a process just to be overtaken by
machines.
The practice of law still necessitates human interaction.
AI cannot handle some extents of the law. In the foreseeable future, machines cannot speak in courts.
Furthermore, there are some areas of the law that are rapidly changing in which even AI would not be able to
pick it up fast. The judgment of a lawyer is still an added value to the 25predictions of AI. Moreover, some clients
do not confide their freedom in the influences of the 26algorithms. Ferose and Pratt identified that the principal
problem with AI and the judicial 27system is the struggle of building trust (citizens and institutions) to accept AI in
resolving disputes.
Id.24 Ben-Ari, Daniel, Yael Firsh, Adam Lazovski, Uriel Eldan and Dov Greenbaum. 2016. “Danger, Will 25
Robinson”? Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law: An Analysis and Proof of Concept Experiment.”
Richmond Journal of Law and Technology Vol., Issue 2, pp. 46. Id.26 Ibid., pp. 3827 Ferose, VR and Lorien
Pratt. 2018. How AI Is Disrupting The Law. A pril 03. Accessed September 16, 28 2018.
https://www.digitalistmag.com/digital-economy/2018/04/03/ai-is-disrupting-law-06030693.
The need of the client to interact with a human is still established. This is mainly because humans, according to
clinical psychologist and behavioral neurogeneticist Dr. Bob Murray, “are relationship-dependent and
relationship-seeking creatures [yet] lawyers and law firms are being dragged into being less human and more
automated.” The human interaction benefits both the client and the lawyer – the client wants to see an adept
lawyer who could solve his problem and in return, the lawyer could give his expertise which may expand his
experience. Human interaction may not be cost-effective but it is still valuable. If human interaction will be
disregarded, it may pose risks to clients. One could not trust an AI to undertake the growing and multifaceted
needs of a client which may range from traffic violation to murder case. While the legal profession is drawn to the
advantages that the digital technology offers, lawyers must not mislay sight of more customary standards in the
urgency to automate, modernize, and augment their business. 


Travelers Endemnity Company, The. n.d. The Practice of Law Still needs a Human Face. Accessed 29
September 16. 2018. https://www.travelers.co.uk/contact-us. Id.30 Ibid.31 Lew, Charles. 2018. Artificial
Intelligence And The Evolution of Law. July 17. Accessed September 16, 32 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeslacouncil/2018/07/17/artificial-intelligence-and-the-evolutio nof-
law/#28da2c5636ee. Travelers Endemnity Company, The. n.d. The Practice of Law Still needs a Human Face.
Accessed 33 September 16. 2018. https://www.travelers.co.uk/contact-us.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

We, the Respondents, therefore conclude that the practice of law is public service that cannot be extended to
the entities of artificial intelligence, precisely because the legal and philosophical standards only afford such
personal right (privilege) exclusively to natural persons, and that the public cannot be protected or insured from
the drawbacks of the practice of such artificial entities. Further, that the practice of law cannot be afforded to
artificial entities such as artificial intelligence, such that it poses ethical concerns and existential dilemmas, which
leads to the detriment of the legal profession. Thereby, we move that the motion of whether or not the house
would allow the adaptation of artificial intelligence in the practice of law within the foreseeable future, be DENIED
and resolved in our favor.