More on AI that you can’t afford to miss

Thanks to  视觉中国 (@vcgimage) for use of the photo

A post instigated by the recent lecture from Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice

Sir Geoffrey Vos is a truly modern judge. His court is paperless. His keynote lecture, ‘Transforming the Work of Lawyers and Judges‘ delivered on 8 March 2024 to the Manchester Law Society concerned predictably, artificial intelligence and the law. Early in his lecture he asked, teasingly, when the time will come when a lawyer would be considered negligent in not using AI?

The handful of assiduous followers to this blog will recall that I have previously posted about artificial intelligence impacting on our work, mostly stimulated by presentations from the Master of the Rolls.

Sir Geoffrey posed two principles for lawyers: that we must embrace constructive use of effective technology for better, quicker and more cost-effective service; whilst endeavouring to protect our clients from adverse cyber risks arising from its use.

In judicial guidance for using AI, issued on 12 December 2023, Sir Geoffrey described its limitations succinctly: a Generative AI large language model is ‘trained to predict the most likely combination of words from a mass of data. It does not check its responses by reference to an authoritative database’. In other words, AI sort-of checks its own homework. At the moment of information-generation, the teacher is absent – as is the White Book at the time of marking.

When asked how AI can assist lawyers, it proposed: legal research; drafting documents and contracts; factual/legal case analysis, legal education; drafting letters, memos, briefs and opinions; resolving ethical issues; translation; giving guidance on LawTech and practice management.

Sir Geoffrey was particularly impressed by AI’s contract drafting.

When I asked ChatGPT and CoPilot to draft a tenancy agreement, they provided near-perfect drafts – with a caveat from ChatGPT that I should seek legal advice to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and a suggestion from CoPilot that I  consult the official Model Agreement for a Shorthold Assured Tenancy provided by the UK government.

When I asked Gemini it responded, ‘I can advise on the existence of resources but cannot provide a legal document like a house letting contract. Here’s why: Legal complexities: Accurately reflecting landlord-tenant laws and ensuring enforceability requires legal expertise. Importance of specific details: Each tenancy agreement needs customization based on the property, duration, and specific situations’. It did, however, go on to identify the Government data base to provide a suitable precedent, and concluded by recommending the use of a solicitor or experienced conveyancer!

AI is unlikely, says Sir Geoffrey, to be optional in the near future. Already it can provide workable outlines, documents, summaries and advices quicker and more comprehensively that its human counterpart. A lawyer that disregards it will be viewed like an accountant using an abacus – maybe right, but possibly negligent.

Interestingly, Sir Geoffrey raised the topic of AI itself being the subject matter of litigation, including liability for its use, non-use or misuse, as well as its content and functioning.

A question remains as regards ‘automated decision making’. As the Master of the Rolls points out, such decisions are regularly and reliably made in other fields. He envisages that decisions may ultimately be made ‘by a machine’ albeit subject to appeal to a human.

Where does Sir Geoffrey leave us? It’s clear. Right now we should be road-testing Generative AI to learn its strengths and weaknesses; where we can use it to advantage, and when we should be cautious. In our professional lifetimes there will come a moment that, without it, we will cease to function competitively.

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

*

*

*

*

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.