Readit NewsA paralegal. In about half the US, said nurse practicioner must be working under a supervising doctor, just like the paralegal works under a supervising lawyer.
So there isn't one.
The problem is that we’re going to have people litigating court cases and stupid bureaucratic nonsense within companies by lobbing nonsense that nobody has read at each other. Everyone will wink and nod, but these organizations and institutions will be exponentially more clueless.
As technologists, it’s easy to shrug. What do you do when a judge takes your kid away after using an LLM to read and interpret bullshit generated case notes that a CPS worker generated with another LLM?
Replace LLM with "clerk" and "generated case notes" with "copy pasted from my standard legally approved phrasing" playbook. Government workers who fill out standard reports already have standard forms pre filled with the results they know they are landing out, with certain sections that differ ready to be edited while the rest stays the same, look at things like warrants as an example. When I worked a government job i was literally handed templates by my supervisor of "pre approved ways to phrase things", that they percieved would help avoid lawsuits or any contest.
The legal field does not have a strong cartel at the moment.
In 1940 and in 1970, the population of lawyers was about .13-.16% of people in the US. Currently, it's 3x higher at .39%... after 3 years of declining numbers.
The market is saturated. Large numbers of lawyers can't find enough work, or have moved to other fields.
Edit: Link to report: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-en...
There is a plethora of things that are minor, don't require going to court, and can be handled via bog standard forms and documents that are just "replace the names" and that lawyers have their paralegals do for them in their entirety. But the paralegal cant go into business on their own can they?
What is the equivalent of the nurse who can get you antibiotics in the US legal system?
Document review is already being done by AI, lawyers are using AI to beef up closing arguments and review arguments, AI researchers to go through the relevant cases for citations have been worked on for awhile.
Lawyers being lawyers have immediately reached to "make it illegal" and setting up protections for their trade like they always done. Roberts is commenting that they are going to be disappointed if they think they can get legal protections that X or Y must always be done by a human.
In Feinstein's case, its pretty clear she was forced to stay on by her party while they made arrangements for her successor, there is a lot of people and factions in California who want her seat in the Democratic party.
Also the competency crisis is real, alot of them dont have successors. Often by their own actions in an attempt to consolidate power, but they've left the field barren now thats its time for them to leave.
The link provided shows that, in fact, the union opposed the change. This claim is a bald faced lie, and lies should be downvoted on HN.
Unions aren't mentioned at all in the article. Your claim is also a bald faced lie. More so than the OP. This article supports OP's claim https://nypost.com/2023/03/16/nys-education-leaders-again-pr..., I can trivially find other articles from other sources where the New York teachers union has made it clear they dont find how they are evaluated by test scores acceptable. That may even be a reasonable position to have. There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it.
this is one of the huge issues for the unemployed lawyer problem, as those jobs were the entry level for straight of school lawyers. I expect similar problems with dev roles coming soon.