If there were a court case to decide whether society should adopt or reject artificial intelligence (AI), it’s probable that the jury would be deadlocked.
It seems that no one can determine that the advantages, including automated writing tasks, and searching huge information in seconds are greater than their disadvantages consisting of unreliable data, and insufficient precision and responsibility.
AI can serve as both advantage and disadvantage for the legal profession by itself. The same report in the UK’s Law Society says it could mean “savage reduction” in human jobs.
Similarly, a report this year revealed that a study conducted from the University of Pennsylvania, New York and Princeton stated that the legal profession would be the first to be disrupted by artificial intelligence.
Additionally, AI can serve as a very important support tool during investigations and case development. The precedence does exist of things gone absolutely awful.
A recent case involves a New York attorney Steven Schwartz who got in trouble during this year because of his own lawsuit, while being engaged in a lawsuit in which a man claimed personal injuries because of an airline company. The AI had fabricated six out of the seven cases he used.
This would have made some law firms reluctant but Ben Allgrove, the chief innovation officer at international law firm Baker McKenzie holds a different opinion.
He says, “I don’t think that this is a technology story, but this is a lawyer’s story.” “The first obstacle is his professional inelegance and unethical behaviour. After that comes the fact that it wasn’t an appropriate tool.”
This is perhaps, an insurmountable obstacle that no one can determine if the advantages – e.g., writing tasks automation and sorting through tons of data within second overcomes its cons like the biased data, and lacks of precision and responsibility.
AI can be seen as an opportunity or a threat to the legal profession. As per a 2021 report by the Law Society of the UK, this could result into a “savage reduction” in positions available for workers.
Moreover, a research carried out this year from Penn State universities predicted that the legal industry will face the biggest changes caused by artificial intelligence.
However, AI also has great potential value in terms of research and building of the argument. Despite instances of things getting incredibly bad.
This year, therefore, New York law attorney Steven Schwartz was forced to defend himself before the law in a case where he applied an artificial general intelligence (AGI) named ChatGPT in order to search for precedent upon which to base his arguments in a litigation where a man was Five out of the seven cases were entirely fabricated by the AI.
That may not have persuaded some law firms to engage into such systems, but it will be viewed differently by Ben Allgrove a chief innovation officer for an international law firm Baker McKenzie.
“I’m not sure if its a tech story. It’s a story about lawyers,” he said. Deal with the unprofessionalism of Mr. Schwartz and the ethics, and it goes further down to the fact that he should not have used it as a tool.
Image credit by GETTY IMAGES
Since 2017, Baker McKenzie has been following different advances made via AI and today it has assembled a group of attorneys, data scientists and data engineers tasked with testing such new solutions which come into this market.
Mr Allgrove believes that most of the AI use in his company will be using the new AI-enabled versions of current legal software providers such as LexisNexis and Microsoft’s 365 solution for Legal.
The company LexisNexis had already begun using its Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform that month, which allows answering legal questions, drafting documents, and summarising the legal issues. On the other hand, Microsoft’s AI-tool, Copilot will go live commercially for a few dollars above 365 a month beginning next month.
We are already using LexisNexis and Microsoft and they’ll get a lot of capabilities based on generative AI. We should buy these things when they work and at appropriate prices.
The AI that everyone is buzzing about is generative AI. The AI is able to generate text, pictures or even music depending on what it was taught.
However, at this point in time, the premium or paid for version of such tool is very costly. According to “Mr Allgrove”, the cost of paying for Microsoft’s Copilot service alone “would double our technology spend”.
In such case, law firms have an option of paying low amounts towards the artificial intelligence (AI) systems that do not target the legal market, including but not limited to Google’s Bard, Meta’s Llama, and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. They would connect to these platforms and customize them to suit their respective legal contexts.
Several trials are already being carried out by Baker McKenzie. As per Mr Allgrove, “we go into the market to say that these models must be used in the testing stage.”
Instead, the lawyers can pay less money on AI-based system not developed for legal market (e.g., google’s bard, meta’s llama or openAI’s chatGPT). Such platforms would allow the firms to interface them and make necessary adjustments so that they can serve their legal ends
Currently, several tests are being carried out at Baker McKenzie. “We walk into a market, say we need to test how these models work,” Mr Allgrove said.
He explained that such testing is important in order to “authenticate performance,” as all of the systems are going to err.
Robin AI is a legal software system which relies on an “AI co-pilot” for faster processes, such as drafting and interpreting contracts, whether for in-house lawyers or individuals.
It uses mainly an AI developed by a company named Anthropic. A former vice president of research at OpenAI established this, and it has been supported by an investment from Google.
However, RobinAI has come up with their own AI models which they use in studying the finer points of contracts’ law. It stores, labels, and utilizes every single contract that it has as a means of education.
This signifies that the company has accumulated lots of contracts in their database which Karolina Lukoszova, co-head of legal and product in UK based Robin AI opines will underpin adoption of AI in law profession.
“Companies will need to train their own smaller models on their own data within the company,” she explains. “This approach will yield superior results and create a clear boundary of protection.”
To ensure the accuracy of information, RobinAI employs a team of human lawyers who work in tandem with the AI.
Alex Monaco, an employment lawyer who manages his own solicitor practice and a tech firm called Grapple, has developed Grapple to offer the public what he refers to as “an ontology of employment law.” It provides guidance on various workplace issues, such as bullying, harassment, and redundancy. The platform can generate legal letters and provide case summaries.
He’s enthusiastic about AI’s potential to democratize the legal profession. “Around 95% of the inquiries we receive come from people who simply can’t afford lawyers,” Mr. Monaco remarks.
However, due to the wide availability of free AI tools, people can now assemble their legal cases. Anyone with an internet connection can use platforms like Bard or ChatGPT to assist in drafting legal letters. While it may not match the quality of a letter composed by a lawyer, it comes at no cost.
“AI isn’t replacing humans, and it’s not replacing lawyers. What it’s doing is enhancing people’s comprehension and execution of their legal rights,” he asserts.
He also emphasizes that in a world where AI is widespread, this can be highly significant.
Some employees claim that companies and corporations are employing AI in their operations as a mechanism of hiring and firing them with the help of CV profiling, AI-based restructurations, mass dismissals, among others and against the ordinary employee.
Some are already encountering their own legal issues though the use of AI in law is still a new concept.
Donotpay company that describes itself as “the world’s first robot lawyer”, promising to deal with parking tickets, as well as other citizen claims through AI software, has faced several lawsuits including one that accuses it of unauthorized legal practice.
However, it has come to pass in the USA in which senior judges have mandated that all lawyers should state in their respective courts filing their use of AI or not due to a similar case involving Steven Schwartz.
However, according to Mr Monaco, it will be hard to define it and enforce the same as well.
Google incorporates artificial intelligence into its search engine algorithm and now its utilizes bards. So even when you “google” anything its AI that is helping you with your legal research.
Leave a Reply