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.
Stephen Twist's Barrister Blog 