In this episode, Canadian employment lawyers Stuart Rudner and Geoff Lowe of Rudner Law step into the arena for a marketing-meets-ethics showdown. The Wheel of Misfortune spins up hot topics including influencer culture, AI in law, Google Ads warfare, and whether brands should take a stance on social issues or stay comfortably neutral.
Welcome back to Devil’s Advocate, the business comedy podcast where sharp legal minds are forced to defend arguments they’d normally shred in court.
In this episode, Canadian employment lawyers Stuart Rudner and Geoff Lowe of Rudner Law step into the arena for a marketing-meets-ethics showdown. The Wheel of Misfortune spins up hot topics including influencer culture, AI in law, Google Ads warfare, and whether brands should take a stance on social issues or stay comfortably neutral.
Naturally, things escalate. ChatGPT makes a cameo. “It depends” becomes a recurring character. And a completely fabricated word enters the legal lexicon.
Equal parts insight and absurdity, this face-off proves that even seasoned employment lawyers can be pushed into beautifully uncomfortable territory.
📱 Influencer Marketing: Manipulation or Evolution?
Is #ad culture a modern word-of-mouth revolution or precision-targeted persuasion dressed in athleisure?
🏳️ Brand Activism Debate
Do companies have a responsibility to take social stands, or is corporate neutrality the safest business model?
🔎 Bidding on Competitor Names
Smart marketing strategy or ethically questionable digital ambush?
🤖 AI in Law
Is ChatGPT a productivity superpower or a confidence-inflating hallucination machine?
🌕 Word of the Month: “Gravlune”
Stuart and Geoff take a stab at defining a completely fake word. Turns out they were disturbingly accurate.
💬 The “It Depends” Counter
How many times can two employment lawyers say it in one episode? The limit does not exist…
Final Verdict:
Stuart admitted to consulting AI mid-debate, Geoff coined a word that shouldn’t work but somehow does, and the real winner might be whichever associate fact-checks them both tomorrow morning.
The Wheel spins. The arguments flip. And once again, nobody leaves with their original opinion fully intact.
Psst! Got a devilish topic you want our guests to debate in a future episode? Comment of DM us with #DevilsAdvocate or send us a smoke signal. Or just email us like a normal person at bark@meanpug.com.
Subscribe to MeanPug Digital on YouTube & turn on notifications so you don’t miss a debate: https://www.youtube.com/@meanpugdigital
Follow us on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/devils-advocate-lawyer-v-lawyer-game-show/id1813413142
New episodes of Devil’s Advocate dropping every month! Come for the chaos, stay for the accidental insight.
Featured Guests:
Stuart Rudner, Managing Partner at Rudner Law
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuartrudner
Website: https://www.rudnerlaw.ca
Geoffrey Lowe, Associate Attorney at Rudner Law
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffreylowe
Website: https://www.rudnerlaw.ca
[00:00:00] Stuart Rudner: I will admit I went to my chat. GPT Cheater. That is the flaw of our system. Hold your arguments. Don't give it to 'em.
[00:00:05] Geoff Lowe: I'm ruining the podcast here. I understand that
[00:00:07] Stuart Rudner: I surrender.
[00:00:14] Narrator: Welcome to hell devil's advocate, Pitt's lawyer against lawyer in a battle royale to answer the age old question. Who's better at arguing? The rules of the game are we spin the wheel of misfortune to decide on a topic. Once a topic has been selected, the advocates must answer a set of polarizing questions.
[00:00:34] Narrator: When they disagree, the game begins. Each advocate must argue their side, but here's the devilish twist. They must argue for the side they did not select. Let the depravity commence.
[00:00:54] Bobby Steinbach: Hey everybody, and welcome to Devil's Advocate. Today we have with us two folks from the same firm, which I think is the first time we're doing that. We've got Stuart Rudner and Geoff Lowe from, uh, Rudner Law. Geoff is apparently the resident boxing slash jujitsu expert, so we're gonna see if he can pull. I was gonna say, pull his punches.
[00:01:13] Bobby Steinbach: No, the opposite, not pull his punches on. Today's devil's advocate. Hey guys. Thanks for joining.
[00:01:19] Stuart Rudner: Thanks for having us and I'm hoping Geoff will Bullet punches.
[00:01:21] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, I'm just gonna stress that my expertise is very limited and it's, uh, expert by default. So if anybody calls me out in the comments, I do not wanna roll
[00:01:30] Bobby Steinbach: under promising immediately.
[00:01:32] Bobby Steinbach: That is the strategy.
[00:01:33] Geoff Lowe: There we go.
[00:01:34] Bobby Steinbach: Okay. Let's get this started.
[00:01:39] Bobby Steinbach: My first question here, we're in the marketing tab. We might stay in this for today. We're gonna see, first question, should companies be allowed to use personal data to tailor ads, or does this cross ethical boundaries?
[00:01:50] Stuart Rudner: I'll say as long as it's public, they can use it.
[00:01:52] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, that was my statement. Yeah. If, if it, it's all the source of the data.
[00:01:56] Geoff Lowe: So if they're getting the data surreptitiously and they're not telling you that. They're harvesting from you, then I have a problem with it. But if they're telling you one of the criteria for using their platform is that they're gonna yank your data, then sure, I'm good with it.
[00:02:07] Bobby Steinbach: Okay.
[00:02:08] South Park: What did the terms and conditions for the last update say?
[00:02:10] South Park: I dunno, I didn't read them.
[00:02:12] Bobby Steinbach: Let's move on to the next. No disagreement. Is influencer marketing more manipulative than traditional advertising or simply a modern evolution of word of mouth? I,
[00:02:21] Stuart Rudner: I, I'd say it's just the, the more modern version of it.
[00:02:23] Geoff Lowe: Yeah. I don't, I don't know if I agree with that. I think it is a bit more manipulative because sometimes, and what I know about influencer marketing could probably be written on the inside of a matchbook.
[00:02:31] Geoff Lowe: I just know what other people have told me. Everything I've learned, the influencer marketing has been against my world.
[00:02:35] Bobby Steinbach: Wait, hold your arguments. Don't give it to 'em.
[00:02:36] Stuart Rudner: Wait, wait, wait, wait,
[00:02:37] Geoff Lowe: wait. Sorry. Sorry.
[00:02:38] Bobby Steinbach: You're giving your, your enemy ammunition, right?
[00:02:41] Geoff Lowe: So, yeah.
[00:02:42] Bobby Steinbach: Well, they disagree. He's
[00:02:42] Geoff Lowe: my boss. He's not quite my enemy, but yeah.
[00:02:48] Stuart Rudner: Enemy for this next coming eighth. There we go.
[00:02:50] Bobby Steinbach: Exactly. Let's pan to the weights.
[00:02:52] Stuart Rudner: I surrender this.
[00:02:54] Bobby Steinbach: All right guys, so game is triggered. Stuart, you believe that influencer marketing is a modern evolution of word of mouth. So you are now taking the opposite. You think it's manipulative? And Jeff, you believe that it's manipulative.
[00:03:06] Bobby Steinbach: So you have to say it's modern evolution of word of mouth.
[00:03:13] Geoff Lowe: I guess there is a strong argument to be made that it is an evolution of word of mouth because it's people that you trust and you watch online. The blurry of the lines between online life and. Reality in real life. It's arguable that a lot of people do consider influencers to be like, if not peers, then somewhat acquaintances and friends because they're up to date on everything in their lives.
[00:03:30] Geoff Lowe: Um, there isn't that same back and forth like with an actual friend or relationship, but I mean, I've had friends. I don't get anything from either, but that's just how it is. And so once an influencer suggests or tells you to do something, it feels like it's just a buddy telling you what to do. So, yeah, I I think there's an argument to be made for that.
[00:03:46] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. The flip side of that though is I think it, it is. Definitely more manipulative because it's much more targeted, right? Traditional advertising was just posted on tv, radio, billboards, whatever, and it was directed at everyone. Uh, influencers, as I understand it and as I understand the algorithms.
[00:04:02] Stuart Rudner: They're targeted to specific people, so you're gonna know that certain people are susceptible to the message they're gonna get bombarded with that message becomes a bit of an echo chamber, and it's gonna manipulate them a lot more than the traditional generic advertising. So I would say it's far more manipulative than, uh, than traditional marketing.
[00:04:20] Geoff Lowe: I kind of agree with that position, so it's kind of a difficult, I'm ruining the podcast here. I understand that.
[00:04:26] Meme: Oh man. What? You're just ruining it.
[00:04:28] Bobby Steinbach: I also agree with it. That one's tough. Yeah. I hate influencers.
[00:04:32] Geoff Lowe: Yeah. Yeah. And my concern, I mean, the reason I had the position in the first place is because like they're not letting you know that they're advertising to you.
[00:04:39] Geoff Lowe: I just keep thinking of that South Park with like, uh, with cred, the energy drink and like the guys like constantly just driving cred. I got cred. You know, and they're not telling you that they're sponsored by cred, and that's the entire purpose of this. And now
[00:04:50] Stuart Rudner: Craig has a new flavor cherry bubble go.
[00:04:53] Bobby Steinbach: So if you guys could go back to your original stance, Stuart, why do you believe it's not manipulative?
[00:04:59] Stuart Rudner: I don't know that it's manipulative because it's just messaging. And whether it's messaging that's created by thumb fancy marketing firm or messaging created by some 13-year-old who's got a YouTube channel. It's a same thing. It's just messaging that you can take or leave and it's gonna influence. The, the same people who are easily influenced by mass marketing are gonna be influenced by influencers.
[00:05:22] Stuart Rudner: So I'm not, not sure it's any more manipulative in that sense. So that's why I initially took that position.
[00:05:26] Bobby Steinbach: Uh, so you believe it might be manipulative, it's just no more manipulative than what's traditionally been going on.
[00:05:32] Andrew Nasrinpay: The, the other counter argument to that, Bobby, is that you can have celebrities on traditional media that are endorsing a product.
[00:05:40] Andrew Nasrinpay: Think of like Jordan's or something along those lines. How is that any different than an influencer? So the lines are somewhat,
[00:05:47] Bobby Steinbach: I do think, I think one, I don't remember which of you made the point, but the aspect of it being hyper targeted I think is an interesting line. Although then you could start talking about ot, like programmatic, that's hyper targeted.
[00:05:58] Bobby Steinbach: And it also is the same concepts. So, uh, I don't know. Yeah, there, there's something to it. I, I'm not sure.
[00:06:03] Stuart Rudner: Yeah, no, that's a great point. Andrew kind of pick that. Appreciate you picking up on, on my train of thought, which, which ended, but, but it's a great thought and a great point, but, uh, yeah, like it's a modern version, but yeah, the targeting and the echo chamber is the difference.
[00:06:17] Bobby Steinbach: Perfect. Okay, let's go to the next one. Next question. Do brands have a responsibility to take public positions on social issues or should they stay neutral to avoid performative activism?
[00:06:27] Stuart Rudner: I, I don't think they have a responsibility to, I think some brands do because they think it's strategic, but I don't think they have a responsibility to.
[00:06:35] Geoff Lowe: Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that. I owe you nothing. I think they should be allowed to do that. And I mean, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from speech for speech, but in terms of responsibility, yeah. My question that responsibility of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.
[00:06:50] Geoff Lowe: That's their sole responsibility.
[00:06:52] Andrew Nasrinpay: Are there any categories of product or service that are legal that you believe should not be allowed to advertise?
[00:07:00] Stuart Rudner: Not that I can think of. Yeah.
[00:07:01] Geoff Lowe: Unless you wanna call like judges a service, because I don't really want judges advertising
[00:07:06] Stuart Rudner: kinda like in the States.
[00:07:07] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, kinda like in the States.
[00:07:08] Geoff Lowe: That would get odd here.
[00:07:09] Stuart Rudner: Do you wanna expand on that?
[00:07:10] Geoff Lowe: Our system of like the judiciary in Canada is meant for, um, judges to be appointed by political means, uh, and like not have politics of their own and not essentially be beholden to individuals in the community. And so they can remain completely neutral.
[00:07:25] Geoff Lowe: I mean, there's multiple cases on that. Um, one of the first cases you read in law school in constitutional law is about like whether justices who are over 75 are permitted to continue working because it, like, there's a, a cap on it in, um, I forget which statute, but there's a cap on how like long a justice can work and if they're permitted to work afterwards, and whether that influences their, their decisions.
[00:07:44] Geoff Lowe: So you want judges to remain completely neutral, and I mean, if they're running for office and relying on campaign contributions, that's going to impair the, at least the appearance of neutrality, if not the actual impact of neutrality.
[00:07:53] Andrew Nasrinpay: Although you agree
[00:07:54] Stuart Rudner: somewhat,
[00:07:54] Andrew Nasrinpay: you should put the money into hiring the politician who's gonna get to pick all the judges anyway.
[00:07:59] Andrew Nasrinpay: Like they are. There's no way around it.
[00:08:02] Stuart Rudner: You kinda, the head end here, that is the flaw of our system. There's always a flaw in the system. Like I think there are flaws of the US system and the fact that, as Jeff said, like every couple of years you gotta run again and you gotta, so you gotta keep the population happy.
[00:08:14] Stuart Rudner: But our system now, I mean there's been a lot of discussion about this in recent years. Whichever party is currently in power chooses the judges. It's still, I think, fairly well known that, you know, if you've made. The right contributions to the right parties and know the right people. That definitely gets you in a, a leg up.
[00:08:32] Stuart Rudner: So very real risk in politics playing a a rule here as well.
[00:08:36] Bobby Steinbach: Lemme go to the next question. Is targeted advertising beneficial because it improves relevance or harmful 'cause it reinforces consumer bias and limits choices?
[00:08:45] Stuart Rudner: That I wanna say yes to both if that, that's my challenge. I'm not sure I can pick one.
[00:08:49] Bobby Steinbach: Are you both in, in the Yes to both. Category.
[00:08:51] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, I think I might well
[00:08:52] Stuart Rudner: be,
[00:08:52] Geoff Lowe: yeah.
[00:08:53] Bobby Steinbach: Okay. Fair enough. Let's move to something I think a little bit more spicy. Okay. Next one. It's okay to run Google Ads on a competitor's name.
[00:09:01] Geoff Lowe: That's a great question. I'll say it does, it does seem wrong. I, I don't see how it is.
[00:09:05] Geoff Lowe: I mean, it's, it's kind of greasy, but at the same time, it's. Huh? We, we have, uh, yeah. Okay.
[00:09:10] Bobby Steinbach: Opposite sides.
[00:09:10] Geoff Lowe: Yeah.
[00:09:10] Bobby Steinbach: Keep hold onto your argument.
[00:09:12] Geoff Lowe: Sure.
[00:09:12] Bobby Steinbach: Uh, okay. So Stuart, you believe it's okay. No problem. And Jeff, you're taking the side that it is wrong and people shouldn't be allowed to do it.
[00:09:25] Stuart Rudner: There's nothing unethical or certainly nothing unlawful about it. I mean, the reality is if you're marketing. Whether you choose to have your, you know, target specific words like employment law or whether you target a specific name of a firm, there's nothing wrong with that. The reality is people are searching for it, and if there's a way to use your advertising strategically so that your firm.
[00:09:50] Stuart Rudner: Comes to the top and gets in front of people's eyes, then there's nothing wrong with that.
[00:09:55] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, I mean, law firms particularly, we, we spend a lot of, and they, they teach you that from the outset of your careers. It, it, your reputation is all you have as a lawyer to a large extent. And so if another firm can come along and throw a bunch of money at it to play with the ICOs and just.
[00:10:09] Geoff Lowe: Tank your name by advertising for you. It's gonna be a problem long term. And it's, it's a problem without a solution ultimately, because I don't know how you would fix it.
[00:10:15] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. But isn't it just about providing the public with information, you know, if someone searches for a specific law firm name because they need, you know, and they know that that law firm provides employment law assistance this way, instead of just seeing that law firm, they're gonna see.
[00:10:30] Stuart Rudner: Three or four or five other employment law firms, they'll know they have some options. They can do some research into each firm and eventually they choose the best one for them as opposed to just being stuck with one.
[00:10:40] Geoff Lowe: It's a fair point. I, I'm thinking of somebody running an ad for RU Law that targets our name and then it's just slanders us and it's difficult to address or defames us rather than slandering.
[00:10:49] Geoff Lowe: 'cause it's in writing. Libels.
[00:10:51] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. So I think, I think that would be taken to the next extreme I think. I think I was just talking about the situation where someone buys the ad. So if somebody searches for run law. Then their firm is gonna come up first. Uh, which is a pretty common tactic. And like I said, I think it's just you're gonna get masses of information when you do a search anyways, so this is just.
[00:11:08] Stuart Rudner: Another form of that, but it makes sure that the, whatever firm is buying the ad gets, gets their name at the top. So I dunno if there's anything wrong with that.
[00:11:17] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, my, my position is what it is. Just, I'm concerned about nefarious use of this more than anything else. To your point, Stuart, I'm sorry to jump to this outta the fence, but you wanna advertise and let other people know that there are other law firms out there and they.
[00:11:28] Geoff Lowe: Not as good as us 'cause the reviews aren't as good. That's great. Thanks a bunch. I appreciate that.
[00:11:32] Stuart Rudner: Lots of hope. Hopefully people will realize that. Yes. But
[00:11:34] Geoff Lowe: that's the goal.
[00:11:35] Stuart Rudner: I guess we're get really weird and I, I don't know if this has ever been a thing, like instead of buying another employment law firm's name, what if we bought like Domino's Pizza?
[00:11:43] Stuart Rudner: So people wanna pepperoni pizza and they get stuck with employment lawyers,
[00:11:46] Geoff Lowe: we don't arrive as quick, unfortunately.
[00:11:50] Bobby Steinbach: It just creates tax, like additional tax in the ecosystem where Google makes more money on everyone. At the end of the day, there is a fallback for you. It's to bid on your own name so that you're appearing at the top, above the people bidding on your name.
[00:12:03] Bobby Steinbach: But the reason for that, like the, there's a Google is disincentivized from doing anything about this problem that works for
[00:12:09] Andrew Nasrinpay: me. Yeah. And I, I would lean in a little bit to what Jeff was saying, where most of the nefarious actions are done within the ad itself. It's over the phone or in areas that are harder to police.
[00:12:22] Andrew Nasrinpay: So there are a lot of instances of fraud occurring, uh, after the fact where like, I don't know, lead generation companies may pretend to be. The firm in question and resell it to the firm itself or to competitors. So there, there's all sorts of stuff that happens where I don't think the act itself is the issue, but it's either trademark issues being done or libel or slander, either on the LA landing page or over the phone.
[00:12:51] Bobby Steinbach: Well, Andrew, do you believe that conquesting ads should be totally fair game?
[00:12:55] Andrew Nasrinpay: I think it should be up to this, each state bar to decide whether it's ethical or not.
[00:13:01] Bobby Steinbach: Each state bar should decide whether or not it's So, you don't believe enforcement should live at the Google layer?
[00:13:07] Andrew Nasrinpay: No. I believe it should be done.
[00:13:09] Andrew Nasrinpay: Well, the trademark should, Google should see trademark as being infringed and police right there because there are a lot of ads where it's just straight up trademark infringement and either lead generation or other firms are making money on other people's terms, which is illegal. And should be enforced.
[00:13:29] Andrew Nasrinpay: But the other ones that are a little bit more subtle. I, I think that's gonna fall state bars.
[00:13:34] Bobby Steinbach: Fair enough. Okay, let's keep on going. Firms differentiating by undercutting traditional fee structures is a good thing for clients in the industry.
[00:13:42] Stuart Rudner: From a law firm perspective, I think it's a terrible idea. I. Uh, it's just a race to the bottom, as you said.
[00:13:50] Stuart Rudner: So, uh, from, I guess from a public perspective, maybe that's some benefit, but not from a law firm perspective.
[00:13:55] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, I completely agree with that position. I think Stuart and I have had discussions on this previously.
[00:13:59] Bobby Steinbach: Okay. Fair enough. Piggybacking on that concept of good for society, good for the business lawyer, advertising is good for clients, the industry and site as a whole, true or false?
[00:14:10] Geoff Lowe: I think it depends on the nature of the advertising. Um, and who's policing the advertising? And I think it goes back to the state or in our circumstance, provincial bars and what's permitted and what isn't. I, I'm thinking just from my personal experience, just having people come in who have seen ads for other law firms and they have this preconceived notion in their head of what their entitlements are.
[00:14:28] Geoff Lowe: And they start telling me, and I mean obviously chat, GPT is. Rapidly eating this concept lunch. But they come in and they have preconceived notions. This is what their entitlements are. I'm like, well, this other firm said I could get this. I'm like, you're telling me I can get this? Okay. That first off, call the other firm, but second, since you're here, uh, let me give you a realistic understanding.
[00:14:44] Geoff Lowe: And it's hard to like take away those preconceived notions, but if it's just simply advertis and indicate that this is a service that's available to you, I think it benefits people. 'cause people are getting, like from my, I as an employment lawyer, people get jerked around at work and they don't realize there's people out there whose job it is, is to help them.
[00:14:57] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. You you took the thought way beyond where I, I was just gonna stop that. True. It's a good thing. Access to information. Access to justice. But you're right, if it's, uh, depending on the content of the advertising, then it can, it can be a negative.
[00:15:10] Andrew Nasrinpay: What do you think the consequences should be for information that is incorrect online?
[00:15:16] Stuart Rudner: I think that the risk, and look, I mean, most lawyers are pretty smart and they know, you know, how far they can push the boundaries. Um, but I think the problem is that, you know, kind of to Jeff's point. They put information out there that might mislead or oversimplify things, and we, we hear this all the time.
[00:15:35] Stuart Rudner: We have advertise on the radio here and you know, in a 32nd commercial, when you're commenting on three different concepts, it's obviously gonna be really high level. And oversimplify it. Uh, that's, that's the problem is as Jeff said, then we get the call saying, well, I, I know I'm entitled to X and we have to explain that the law is much more nuanced.
[00:15:52] Stuart Rudner: So what should the consequences be? That's, that's where I was struggling with an answer. I mean, I think, like, you know, it's fascinating 'cause in Ontario we weren't, or we're not allowed to advertise until what, like 10, 15 years ago?
[00:16:05] Geoff Lowe: Something like that. Yeah.
[00:16:06] Stuart Rudner: Trends, you know. Since I started practicing, it's not that long.
[00:16:09] Stuart Rudner: So we have evolved substantially, but I'd like to see some limits on what people can say in, in terms of how they, I guess it's how they try to explain the law and some more limits on, on not misleading people. Devil's in the details, obviously, but that's where I'd like to see some control.
[00:16:28] Andrew Nasrinpay: Well, what do you think are some of the most misleading things currently happening?
[00:16:31] Stuart Rudner: I think it's just that the bold statements that you have to make in that 32nd clip. Yeah. Uh, when, when you have lawyers, and we're sticking with the employment law context, and I'm not, uh, trying to pick on any of our colleagues, but if lawyers to say, if this happens, you're entitled to a substantial amount of money.
[00:16:46] Stuart Rudner: If that were true, then we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of hours on some of these. It, you know, there are nuance. So the problem is people just hear that one, five second clip and think they're entitled to a substantial amount of money. And sometimes they also do things they shouldn't. You know, if, if the clip says, if this happens, you can do X and get money, people go out and do X And they realize that in this context they shouldn't have.
[00:17:08] Stuart Rudner: So that's where I think we should have more limits on what people, what we can say in, in the, the advertisements.
[00:17:13] Andrew Nasrinpay: I feel like, uh, the key word they're missing there is may. All of the ads will throw May in there, but you're not gonna hear that as a client.
[00:17:21] Stuart Rudner: I mean, that's a great point too. 'cause I think, I think we're pretty good about doing that.
[00:17:27] Stuart Rudner: And we would use the word may. Some of the advertisements will use a much more definitive will. But you're right, Andrew, clients are gonna hear them hear the May as a will anyways.
[00:17:36] Geoff Lowe: Yeah, may,
[00:17:36] Andrew Nasrinpay: may,
[00:17:37] Bobby Steinbach: may,
[00:17:38] Stuart Rudner: may.
[00:17:38] Bobby Steinbach: Is chat GPT beneficial for the legal industry?
[00:17:41] Stuart Rudner: I think we might have some disagreement here.
[00:17:43] Geoff Lowe: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:17:44] Geoff Lowe: I don't know if I wanna say my position 'cause I don't have to defend the other side. To a large
[00:17:48] Bobby Steinbach: play, you could play four D chess and take your opposite position right now.
[00:17:51] Geoff Lowe: Oh, Stewart's gonna write me up after the the furnace test case.
[00:17:55] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. So I'll have, yeah. Chad, GBT right after too. I'll say yes.
[00:17:59] Geoff Lowe: Okay, sure.
[00:17:59] Geoff Lowe: So, yeah, no, I think it's fantastic. I think it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. Chad GBT makes my life easier. You know, I, it's just so quick. I like when I. An email from a client and it's got a 97 page chat, GPT summary, you know, really helps think that.
[00:18:12] Bobby Steinbach: I kind of wanna make you guys do it now, just for that.
[00:18:15] Bobby Steinbach: Why don't you guys take your natural side on this one. You don't have to take the opposite side.
[00:18:19] Geoff Lowe: I appreciate the accommodation.
[00:18:22] Bobby Steinbach: You're welcome.
[00:18:27] Stuart Rudner: Jeff. You've already started. Do you want to, uh, continue on that? Uh.
[00:18:30] Geoff Lowe: I'm trying to think of how somebody described one of Shakespeare's sonnets as like hot jam without, like crust. Like that's what I feel like with with chat GPT. Like you're not getting the nuance and the context behind something. You're just getting a, a regurgitated answer that may or may not be accurate.
[00:18:43] Geoff Lowe: It doesn't know the questions to ask, and it's. I, again refer back to, to death park. It's, it's sycophantic and it's gonna make you feel like you're the smartest person on earth and validates you every single time you say anything like, oh, that's a great question. No, you absolutely should have taken your boss's parking spot and when he tried to move you, removing the wheels from his car was a great idea.
[00:18:58] Geoff Lowe: They did not have cost to terminate your employment anyway, shape or form. You made the right choice that day, and you're making the right choice now.
[00:19:04] South Park: Do you feel smarter? I feel smarter. She's making us smarter.
[00:19:08] Meme: AI is incredible.
[00:19:09] Geoff Lowe: I, I mean, in that respect, I, I have concerns with it because like right now we have people who have gone to chat GPT and provide me with a summary of their, their situation.
[00:19:17] Geoff Lowe: But they're still meeting with me and they're still listening to me. When I, I tell them like, this is my opinion, or this is the firm's opinion on this. I'm concerned that the next step beyond this is, is, well, I don't need anybody 'cause I've got SHA GPT and it tells me how smart I am, so I'm just gonna go to court and they're gonna.
[00:19:30] Geoff Lowe: Bow down. I would be amazed at how great I am. 'cause of all my knowledge,
[00:19:33] Stuart Rudner: I don't need a lawyer.
[00:19:34] Geoff Lowe: Um, which I know some lawyers have already tried and it has not panned out terribly well for sub lawyers.
[00:19:39] Stuart Rudner: Yeah, no, I mean, kidding aside, like I agree with everything you're saying, Jeff, and I guess my, my response is more of a general, is AI good for legal industry as opposed to Jack GPT?
[00:19:47] Stuart Rudner: So like everything you're saying is right and it's kind of scary 'cause we see. Clients come in and they've already done their chat GPT consultation, and they already distinctly understand the law, but at least they're coming in and then we're getting a chance to. Refine that and correct them. I think it provides some degree of access to justice and I mean, I don't know what the latest stats are, but I've heard stats out of the states where something like 80% of the legal market is under service because people are just not going to lawyers.
[00:20:14] Stuart Rudner: Mm-hmm. So those people, I, I'd love to find a way to get those people to get proper legal advice, but if they're not going to anyways, at least they're gonna. Some information, and I mean, like chat g PT is like any other tool. You know, the, the, the better you are using it, the better the results you're going to get.
[00:20:30] Stuart Rudner: And you know, the garbage and garbage out model still applies. So hopefully people are, are also learning how to use it properly. So chat, GPT is a start and I think it's got some value, but like any other tool, it just depends how it's used. And, and Jeff has pointed out a lot of the. Dangers of how it can be misused.
[00:20:47] Bobby Steinbach: I think you guys bring up like a really good point. I always bring this up in like our conversations with, uh, potential clients. There's this number that's thrown around as 1%, 1% of all searches today go through answer engines during the user lifecycle, whatever, uh, the conversion lifecycle. But I think that that number is grossly misrepresented for legal services and probably things like medical too, where the problem statements are fuzzy.
[00:21:12] Bobby Steinbach: Like the vast majority of searchers are looking for like a PlayStation five. They're looking for something extremely clear, like what the scope of what they are searching for is, and the answer of what they want is also pretty clear. They want the cheapest one. They want the one most nearby. They want a used one.
[00:21:28] Bobby Steinbach: Whatever it is, it's easy to refine from like the traditional cert for legal, where people are trying to suss out their own question as they are in context in a session. That's where answer engines really shine. So. I'd be shocked if the number of people who use an answer engine on their way to finding a lawyer isn't closer to like 15, 20%.
[00:21:48] Bobby Steinbach: If not higher. I think it's, um, kinda like grossly overlooked when it comes to understanding the user journey and figuring out where to optimize in the path, because people just look at 1% and that's kinda like what they tend to
[00:22:01] South Park: chat GPT. Dude,
[00:22:02] Stuart Rudner: that's interesting. I think it, it's also gonna be an evolution.
[00:22:05] Stuart Rudner: Like I said, I mean, chat sheet is one tool, right? There are, there are some AI tools specifically for legal, which I think are far more, far more powerful and far more efficient. For legal lawyers or clients to use. Uh, so there's some great tools out there, but even just chat GPT, like I said, it gets, it gets some people access to information they would other otherwise never have.
[00:22:26] Stuart Rudner: And you know, and I've had those consultations where people come in with that 97 page output that documention, and it depends on the person, right? Some people will take that as the gospel, in which case there's just no point in them being there. Uh, but others will use that as a starting point and then they will still listen to their lawyer.
[00:22:43] Stuart Rudner: And then make decisions accordingly. So it, again, I, I'm repeating myself, but it just depends how you use this.
[00:22:49] Geoff Lowe: Yeah. A lawyer answer your question. It depends. Just totally a left field here. Yeah. I tell you,
[00:22:54] Bobby Steinbach: but I, I can't believe you've said this.
[00:22:56] Geoff Lowe: I feel like you guys should have like a bell or something.
[00:22:58] Geoff Lowe: So like when you're got lawyers on it, when the first, it depends, comes up, you ring the bell.
[00:23:01] Bobby Steinbach: I kind of wanna do like a, um, who's that guy who does all the autotune? You know who I'm talking about? Tpa, like T-Pain. I kinda wanna have a TPA style. It depends. Then you can trigger Andrew. You, you can have it on your soundboard.
[00:23:14] Geoff Lowe: It
[00:23:15] Bobby Steinbach: depends. Sick guys. Well, let's, uh, wrap up here. The last thing we always do, we give you guys. A completely fake word. This word does not exist, and it's your job to define it
[00:23:27] Geoff Lowe: perfectly. Chromin.
[00:23:29] Bobby Steinbach: Okay. Excellent. He gets it.
[00:23:35] Bobby Steinbach: The word is, uh, Andrew Ryan, you do the word. I don't know what, what, how you wanna pronounce that?
[00:23:40] Andrew Nasrinpay: Gravel. Glu.
[00:23:42] Geoff Lowe: Can we get a spelling on that?
[00:23:43] Andrew Nasrinpay: G-R-A-V-L-U-N-E. Grave. That's a tough one.
[00:23:52] Geoff Lowe: The degree to which the seriousness of your position depends on the state of the moon.
[00:23:59] Bobby Steinbach: It's pretty good. Can you use that in a sentence?
[00:24:02] Geoff Lowe: I found opposing counts as grave loon changed due to the fact that there was a half moon in the sky. Or I can know, I could predict the degree of opposing counsel gravel given the state of the sky.
[00:24:13] Bobby Steinbach: Yeah. Very good.
[00:24:14] Stuart Rudner: So I will admit, I went to my chat, GPT, what that was talking and leader, I think I may have misspelled it 'cause I was typing quickly while Jeff was speaking. But the definition I got was a novelty toy or desk item, specifically a soft, usually balloon like object with a thick gel or a putty.
[00:24:35] Stuart Rudner: And when you hold it, it stretches, fishes, and slowly deforms under its own weight.
[00:24:40] Bobby Steinbach: Very precise.
[00:24:41] Stuart Rudner: Yeah. Just trying to, back to whole point the chat. GPT has a real value in society.
[00:24:47] Bobby Steinbach: Amazing. Let us know. Where can, uh, listeners find you?
[00:24:50] Stuart Rudner: Yeah, the easiest way is runner law.ca 'cause we are Canadian. Uh, or you can find, certainly find me on LinkedIn.
[00:24:57] Stuart Rudner: And Jeff, you're, you're pretty active on LinkedIn as well? Yep.
[00:24:59] Geoff Lowe: Yep. I had to change my profile picture. I still haven't got a good one yet.
[00:25:02] Bobby Steinbach: That's today's episode of Devil's Advocate. Thanks for joining us guys. You ever on the next devil's advocate,
[00:25:07] Producer: thanks for tuning into this episode of Devil's Advocate.
[00:25:10] Producer: Who do you think the winner was? Make sure to leave a comment to let us know. DM us for any ghoulish topics you think we should dare to debate. We'll catch you in the next one.