Top
Best
New

Posted by noleary 10 hours ago

Mike: open-source legal AI(mikeoss.com)
118 points | 45 comments
jcfrei 37 minutes ago|
I believe this is the direction enterprise software is generally going. An open-source base with a very permissive license that then each company can adapt (with claude, codex, etc.) for it's own needs. It's either running it on it's own infrastructure or in hosted environment by the author. I've built a similarly extensible codebase for an ERP: https://github.com/lambdadevelopment/lambda-erp
reverius42 6 hours ago||
Presumably this is an issue for the commercial competitors too, but in light of the recent court ruling in United States v. Heppner that AI chatbots can break attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, what kinds of things can this be safely used for? (I would assume you want to avoid sending anything with client-confidential information in it to a service provider like OpenAI or Anthropic.)

Potentially if used with a local LLM and not a service provider, this might protect attorney-client privilege?

victorbjorklund 2 hours ago||
It’s not different from googling. If a non-lawyer googles legal advice (”how to give yourself an alibi after murdering someone”) it will not be protected by attorney-client privilege. Same if you ask OpenAI.
llagerlof 2 hours ago||
This. I am telling this since the boom of generative AI and promptly being ignored.
alansaber 1 hour ago|||
You're right but lawyers are naturally looking for precedent to support this
mettamage 1 hour ago|||
Some people pay attention. I know I do. Thanks for mentioning it.
robertritz 4 hours ago|||
United States v. Heppner mentioned a public chatbot service. If a law firm (or specialized provider) offered a chatbot using their own servers and hosted the traces and other data on the law firms own servers it would almost certainly be protected. But another case would need to happen to determine that.

But that only applies for clients using the chatbot. If a lawyer is using the LLM it is definitely protected. No different if a lawyer searches something on Google or Lexis Nexis. The search itself is protected. I guess you could debate metadata but the content surely is protected.

debarshri 4 hours ago|||
you can have dedicated deployment per customer per case, segregating it logically. I have seen this happen in larger law firms. It could be based on groups, teams, partners etc.
NikolaosC 4 hours ago||
[dead]
kostarelo 5 hours ago||
For a moment I thought it was some open-source LLM trained on legal. It's not, it's a web app wrapping major LLM providers and streamlining legal workflows, uploading documents, and having the LLM providers interact with them.

Cool project regardless!

dahcryn 3 hours ago|
yeah I thought that was the USP of Legora and Harvey, so this is not the same thing at all, just surfing the brand recognition
alansaber 1 hour ago||
Harvey made it a point to FT ChatGPT models for a year or so but they were struggling to keep up with the pace of new model deployments and quit. They never went as far as Cursor AFAIK which produced its own routers/"composer" models.
kernalix7 7 hours ago||
Self-hostable legal AI as open source is a useful direction in principle. Hard to tell how mature the actual implementation is though, the repo is pretty fresh and the marketing site is doing a lot of heavy lifting compared to what's in the code right now. Will be more interesting to revisit in a few weeks.
0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago|
Rule of tech products: the nicer the splash page is, the worse the product is
superfrank 4 hours ago||
Apple would like a word...
typeofhuman 15 minutes ago||
Behold the continued tradition of AI products having logos that look like buttholes.
trilogic 2 hours ago||
Why don´t you put a direct link that redirect users to some proprietary AI providers instead of making it look fancy. (If I ask whatever AI model will produce same outputs/forms, structured as you wish, and even locally). To qualify as some wrapper you need to add a layer of creativity by you on top of the existing ones.
syntaxing 8 hours ago||
I always wondered if Justin Kan’s Atrium closed door prematurely by just 2-3 years. It would have been cool to see a “technology” driven law firm and how it would have adjusted to LLMs.
alansaber 1 hour ago|
There are loads of them now. Great for trivial work. Not so great to highly templatise more complex matters.
sandreas 8 hours ago||
Cool project. What a pity it's not mikefoss.com, would match the soundex of Mike Ross from suits even better ;-)
oliwary 1 hour ago||
The name is really clever given that the character in Suits is called Mike Ross. :)
re_spond 9 hours ago|
Cool initiative. Is this fully separate from "legal Mike", the Dutch company that provides a similar solution, https://legalmike.ai/product/ ?

That may be confusing on the naming.

iot_devs 6 hours ago|
I thought it was named after the characters of Suits: Harvey and Mike
More comments...