Chuck E. Cheeseman, Senior VP of the Law Balance think tank and a close confidant of President Trump, has called for an immediate ban on all legal tech tools because they ‘support the rule of law, which…well, you know, isn’t helpful to what the White House wants to achieve’.
Miami-based Cheeseman, who was previously a celebrity proctologist, told Artificial Lawyer that the proposed ban was part of a wider ‘legal re-set’ that his think tank was exploring.
Law Balance was set up in February this year and operates as a ‘touchstone’ for ‘cutting edge thinking’, its website explains, with ‘the rule of law’ as its primary target.
This site conducted the following interview with Cheeseman:
AL: So, why target legal tech?
CC: The answer is simple: the rule of law is a pain in the butt, right? It stops the Executive from doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants.
AL: But, isn’t that the idea? You know, checks and balances to ensure Government doesn’t become a dictatorship?
CC: That’s an outdated idea. We didn’t go through a very expensive election just to be held back by this ridiculous obsession with ‘the rule of law’, which really is just a way for lawyers to make money.
AL: People may disagree with you there, but again: why legal tech?
CC: Because anything that helps lawyers to do their job is making it worse for us. Legal tech – which I have seen – claims to make lawyers more efficient, let’s them do better legal research, gives them time back to handle more cases and so on?
AL: That’s correct.
CC: Well, we don’t want that. We want the courts and trouble-making lawyers out of the picture. So, legal tech – which helps them – has to go too.
AL: I see. I think I’m starting to understand your logic, even if it’s completely bonkers.
CC: Look at it this way. We had an election, right?
AL: You did.
CC: And we won. So, what’s the point in having a democracy if the guy who won can’t then do whatever he wants?
AL: Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t the idea of democracy that the people elect someone to represent their needs, e.g. to lower inflation, and that the elected person can then seek to carry out policies to fulfil that mandate within the bounds of the law – with the courts and legal world acting as a check on Executive power?
CC: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Look, if you become President you get to do anything you want, for as long as you want. That’s the deal.
AL: I’m not sure it’s meant to work like that.
CC: Well, whatever. That’s how it’s going to work from now on. And the so-called rule of law is basically a massive blocker. Right? It’s a barrier, it’s a mendacious conspiracy to prevent all the winning we promised the people. And so, legal tech, which helps that sector, has got to be stopped. It’s quite clear to me.
AL: But, how will you enforce this ban? If, that is, you can get legislation through Congress.
CC: We don’t need legislation. There will be an Executive Order and that’s it: game over.
AL: Even if that were possible, how do you enforce this plan? Through the courts, I presume?
CC: Maybe.
AL: And wouldn’t that be ironic, given that you don’t believe in the legal system?
CC: OK, then we can just deploy the mighty forces we have under our command. Cut out the middle man, or middle lawyer, as it were……. Whoops. I got a call on the other line. I think it’s The Boss. Gotta go.
At this point the conversation ended. Clearly this is just a proposal and no action has been taken yet, but it still raises important questions about the direction of travel and what the ultimate goal is here.
AL will seek to keep you informed as the story progresses.
—
For more information on Law Balance’s work, see here.
