Renowned artist Pras, known for his work with Lauryn Hill and The Fugees, is reportedly seeking a retrial, raising allegations against his legal team. In a motion submitted for a new trial, Pras alleges that his representation was ineffective, with his trial counsel, David Kenner, being singled out for criticism.
“Pras was found guilty in connection with undisclosed lobbying campaigns involving several individuals.”
In April, Pras was convicted in relation to undisclosed lobbying campaigns. He is currently touring with Lauryn Hill, celebrating the 25th anniversary of the classic album, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.
Accusations Against Legal Counsel
Ignoring Defenses and Failing to Object to Testimony
Kenner, according to Pras’s allegations, overlooked almost every viable defense and failed to challenge damaging and inadmissible testimony.
Use of AI in Drafting Closing Arguments
Furthermore, Pras alleges that Kenner utilized an experimental artificial intelligence (AI) program to compile the closing argument. Pras claims that this usage of AI resulted in him not receiving the best possible arguments.
In addition to the aforementioned points, the motion for a new trial suggests that Kenner and his co-counsel may have had a financial interest in the AI program used. This undisclosed financial stake is seen as a clear conflict of interest.
From the Court Documents
The court documents provide further insight into Pras’s allegations:
“It is now apparent that Kenner and his co-counsel appear to have had an undisclosed financial stake in the AI program, and they experimented with it during Michel’s trial so they could issue a press release afterward promoting the program—a clear conflict of interest.”
The use of AI in legal practice isn’t a new phenomenon. However, its application has raised questions about transparency, ethics, and the quality of representation provided.
As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the court will respond to Pras’s motion for a new trial. The outcome has potential implications not only for Pras and his legal team but also for the broader use of AI in legal practice.
The case involving Pras and his legal team brings to light the complexities of using AI in legal proceedings. It raises pertinent questions about ethical issues, transparency, and the effectiveness of legal representation. The outcome of this case could potentially shape the future use of AI in the legal field.
