Sir Geoffrey Vos MR and the 20th Annual Law Reform Lecture

A post arising from the keynote presentation from Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, relating to artificial intelligence and the law.

He doesn’t use paper unless he has to. If you appear in his court you will need to be digital.

Sir Geoffrey Vos MR presents a refreshingly modern wind blowing through the civil courts. On Thursday 22 June, in the 20th Annual Law Reform Lecture from Lincolns Inn, he envisaged a clear role for artificial intelligence in managing legal conflicts, helping to resolve them, and delivering digital justice.

Let’s start with acquiring information. Whilst current AI bots scour the entire World Wide Web using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Sir Geoffrey anticipates a legal AI that will work through a closed portal using application programming interface (AAPI) to link only to government legislation facilities, recognised case report services and established practitioner guides such as the White Book. Being a closed source would eliminate incursions of the mad and the bad. Available to the public at large, using predictive analytics, this could provide a safe, understood, advisory chatbot steer (formerly of the type given by lawyers) whilst ensuring transparency of sources.

Dispute resolution involves more than court hearings. Sir Geoffrey expects actual and potential conflicts to be diverted through ADR systems via AI that will propose outcomes before parties proceed to litigation. It would promote mediation and arbitration as a key mechanism to resolve civil disputes.

A third tier would be AI for lawyers, enabling document drafting (including, says the MR, drafting submissions), document analysis, due diligence, and specialist problem-solving legal case analysis and research. To avoid the terrible fate of US Attorney Steven A Schwartz any offering would need to hyperlink to verifiable and verified sources!

The final area would be during the court process itself, in which AI could play a part in signposting information for the judge, proposing analysis and offering solutions. Save for routine cases, the final adjudication would, of course, be down to the judgment of a human judge.

To prepare ourselves for AI, Sir Geoffrey suggests that we need to reduce our dependency on text-readable documents, such as Word and PDF and move from the ‘digitally accessible’ (requiring translation by the bot) to the ‘machine readable’. Here it seems, the Master of the Rolls must have been reading my previous post from June 2021.

Supporting Sir Geoffrey was a dream-team panel composed of Jamie Susskind (11 KBW), Shoban Iyer, FCIArb (Swan Cbrs) and Dr Matthew Lavy KC (4 Pump Ct), chaired by Eleena Misra KC (Old Square Cbrs). A question for them related to the regulation of AI.

Overall it was felt that process-only systems may require little or no oversight – they would either be found fit for purpose or be speedily changed. However, regulation would become more pertinent in those areas where the AI bot was allowed to roam, picking up uncertified information that, with possible bias in algorithms, may result in untoward outcomes. The use of closed portals would obviate the necessity for this (assuming the sources too were protected), although transparency as to the sources they access and source management would be needed for credibility.

When huge, influential intellects like that of the Master of the Rolls not merely engage, but lead on artificial intelligence, the rest of us day-to-day lawyers should wake up and smell the coffee, as they say. AI is already included as a study module to cater for the law students who (to continue the analogy) will be our profession’s future baristas.

Perhaps now is a good time for you to check out ChatGPT. When I asked it, ‘What role will AI take in UK legal services?’, the bot responded with the answer set out in full below. Yet a question occurs to me: had the bot not known I was a lawyer, would it have added its last placatory paragraph?

*

‘Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly impact various aspects of legal services in the UK. Here are a few roles AI is expected to play in the legal field:

1. Legal Research and Document Analysis: AI can assist lawyers in conducting legal research more efficiently by quickly analyzing vast amounts of legal texts, cases, and precedents. AI-powered algorithms can identify relevant legal documents, extract key information, and provide valuable insights, thereby saving time and effort.
2. Contract Analysis and Due Diligence: AI can be utilized to review and analyze contracts and legal agreements. Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms can extract relevant clauses, identify potential risks or anomalies, and help lawyers in due diligence processes. This can enhance accuracy, speed up contract review, and minimize errors.
3. Predictive Analytics and Case Outcomes: AI can leverage historical case data to predict the potential outcomes of ongoing cases. By analyzing past judgments, legal arguments, and contextual factors, AI algorithms can provide insights into the probability of success, helping lawyers make more informed decisions and develop effective legal strategies.
4. Legal Chatbots and Virtual Assistants: AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants can provide basic legal information, answer frequently asked questions, and guide individuals through legal procedures. This can improve access to legal services, especially for those who cannot afford traditional legal representation.
5. E-Discovery and Data Management: AI can streamline the e-discovery process, which involves the identification, collection, and review of electronically stored information (ESI) for legal cases. AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of data, identify relevant information, and flag potentially privileged or sensitive data, making the process faster and more accurate.
6. Compliance and Risk Management: AI can assist in monitoring regulatory compliance by analyzing vast amounts of data and identifying potential risks or violations. This can help organizations stay updated with legal requirements, detect patterns of non-compliance, and mitigate legal risks.

It is important to note that while AI can offer numerous benefits to the legal sector, it is unlikely to replace human lawyers entirely. Legal expertise, judgment, and ethical considerations are crucial elements that AI currently lacks. Therefore, AI is more likely to augment legal services and empower lawyers rather than replace them.’

.

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*

*

*

*

*

Parliamentary process: a battle for supremacy

A post concerning Boris’ departure from Parliament

The problem with supremacy, by its fundamental nature, is that it is absolute. Supremacy cannot be shared. You have it, or you don’t. It’s all to do with power.

We have always revered power and order. That is why we have Kings, Prime Ministers and Parliaments. We crave to know who tops the order – to fear, to revere; to challenge or to obey. Battles for supremacy are as old as time itself. Conflict between former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Parliament comes as no surprise.

Regular readers of my blog may recall two previous posts relating to the exercise of power – from September 2019 concerning Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament; and November 2022 relating to Prime Ministers’ use of prerogative powers.

The proroguing issue concerned a legal challenge to the government by Gina Miller, determined in the Supreme Court with a judgment from former President Brenda Hale. Miller’s case was that the Boris Johnson had sought to remove parliament’s oversight of Brexit by ‘standing Parliament down’ for an extended period. The Supreme Court determined that this was unlawful. Parliament was sovereign – it alone held the ultimate authority and could not be shut down by the executive. Hale LJ put it thus, ‘The sovereignty of Parliament would… be undermined as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased’.

The prerogative powers, formerly held exclusively by Kings but now wielded by their Prime Ministers again came under scrutiny by former Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, when discussing Prime Ministerial appointments to the House of Lords, and PM Liz Truss’ attempt to exercise presidential powers, forcing through fiscal measures without Parliamentary oversight and ratification.

To consider the back-story of the struggle for supremacy we need to return to 1610 and King James I, son of Mary Queen of Scots. His battle was with Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke in the cases of ‘Dispensing Power’ and ‘Prohibitions del Roy’, the latter reported at [1607] EWHC KB J23. In Coke’s case notes (page 126 & 38) he wrote,

‘in Things which are not incident solely and inseparably to the Person of the King, but belong to every Subject, and may be severed, there an Act of Parliament may absolutely bind the King’…..‘The law of England is divided into three parts, common law, statute law and custom; but the King’s proclamation is none of them … and it was resolved that the King had no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him‘.

It is possible that legal history will report on ‘Partygate’ with more elegance than does currently the popular press. The House of Commons Committee of Privileges, representing the supremacy of Parliament, concluded that Parliament had been deliberately misled. Johnson’s assertion of ‘Kangaroo court’ to Parliament’s right to regulate itself was seen off. Had he not resigned he would have been suspended and likely expelled by his electorate under s.14 Recall of MPs Act 2015.

Boris Johnson’s challenge was not to a random committee, but to a sovereign Parliament. Perhaps this is why his departure from front-line politics was inevitable, and proves more than timely?

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform not the writer. They are neither monetarised nor endorsed.

*

*

*

*

Judgment v artificial intelligence

A post – not about who we are and how we travel; but about our destination.

This week’s lightbulb moment came whilst listening to Professor Richard Susskind OBE KC(Hon) in his lecture to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on artificial intelligence and the law. Susskind illustrated his talk with a photograph of a famous drill. ‘That’s what we do, isn’t it’, was apparently Black & Decker’s question to new recruits, for them only to be corrected if they concurred. ‘No, our focus should be on the best way to achieve the hole in the wall’.

For too long lawyers have been preoccupied with our legal processes – the landscape of litigation – rather than the outcome. Whether for professional self-survival, tradition, conservatism or simply lack of imagination our profession has maintained its old ways, just as it did (and still does) with the wig and gown.

A few days ago I attended a local court where a case had been listed before a senior judge. Five advocates prepared an agreed order whilst waiting for the case to be called on. Then we were informed that the listing officer had slipped up and we had neither a court nor a judge. Rather than finding a spare one to approve the draft, after a long wait we were told that the hearing would be ‘vacated’ and we should come back another day. By then a legal bill of over £3k had been incurred – seemingly for no benefit. It was time to rebel. Instead of departing as instructed we refused to leave until our draft was reviewed. Within minutes the case was sorted.

This event highlighted a number of questions. First, how could a seemingly important legal process be so easily derailed. Second, did we ever need a costly hearing with a judge? And third, how can we overcome such problems for the future?

An answer is for courts and judges to become less technologically myopic. With access to case databases, using accurate predictive compliance and artificial intelligent systems, a ‘case management app’ could prepare a fool-proof order in a fraction of a second. We already have the capability and much of the transformational software. We just need to recognise the inevitability of AI and to take the step to automate the preparatory processes leading to contested hearings.

Legal services have long been unaffordable without significant wealth or public funding. ‘Intelligent’ systems to manage cases may have some way to go, but AI could prepare the documentation that is required to conduct a case, providing cheaper, better and quicker risk-avoiding processes. Says Susskind, given that simulated neural networks are doubling every 3.5 months their development will be 300,00 fold within six years, out-performing lawyers due to AI’s vast databases, improved algorithms and heuristic processing power.

On the question of artificial intelligence versus human judgment, to what problem is judgment a solution? Clients want a fair resolution without human mistakes. How better to manage these processes than to deploy a tried and tested higher-level intelligence rather than an over paid lawyer?

Advertisements appearing at the foot of this post are placed by the platform not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.