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.

*

*

*

*

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.

*

*

*

*

*