* "AI in Legal Practice". Image Credit: Lego Desk. Copyright © 2022 Lego Desk.
In recent times, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by law firms has become markedly commonplace. AI is but one type of ‘competent’ technology that is being utilised by law firms in order to enhance their efficiency in delivering fast, high-quality, and affordable services. AI is ‘a subfield of computer science that studies the thought processes of humans and recreates those processes via machines, such as computers and robots’ with the ultimate goal of building machines that mimic human intelligence (R. Kelly Rainer Jr., Casey G. Cegielski, Ingrid Splettstoesser and Cristóbal Sánchez- Rodríguez, Introduction to Information Systems: Supporting and Transforming Business (John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd. 2014) 434). With the superimposition of machine learning, which describes the capacity of a computer to learn without being programmed, automation can extend much further (See generally, Susan Letter, ‘Embrace the Change that AI is Bringing’ (August 14, 2019), Law Practice Today. Available: <https://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/embrace-the-change-that-ai-is-bringing/>).
Notwithstanding its utility, however, concerns are often raised about the increased reliance by law firms on AI and other competent technologies within the legal profession centres on some apparently impending “AI takeover”, which will supposedly make lawyers redundant as AI and analytics become increasingly more embedded in law firms. However, whilst not entirely unfounded, this concern evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of AI as well as the dominant purpose(s) for which AI — in its current state of development — is put to use by most law firms in the 21st century. Indeed, in its current state of development, AI is mostly used by law firms to do routine tasks, like due diligence and time-consuming research, that would typically be done by junior lawyers. The more complex legal work requiring sharper legal insights and analysis are still disproportionately performed by partners and/or senior lawyers as opposed to AI and other competent technologies. In more ways than one, this proves to be extremely useful in saving valuable time that could be devoted to analysing results, solving complex legal problems requiring in-depth analysis and critical thinking as well as advising clients (Paul Fisher, ‘Could Artificial Intelligence Put Lawyers Out of Business?’ (September 4, 2019), KuppingerCole Analysts. Available at <https://www.kuppingercole.com/blog/fisher/could-artificial-intelligence-put-lawyers-out-of-business>). AI is therefore more likely to support lawyers in the performance of their duties, rather than replace them altogether— at least not until its capacity is sufficiently developed to perform the more complex legal tasks and functions that as of now primarily remains within the lawyer’s preserve (Dominic Carman, ‘Will technology kill all the lawyers?’ (April 15, 2019), Global Legal Chronicle. Available at: <https://www.globallegalchronicle.com/will-technology-kill-all-the-lawyers/>).
State responses to developments in AI across the world
According to Oxford Insights, AI technologies have been forecasted to add US$ 15 trillion to the global economy (Oxford Insights, Government Artificial Intelligence Readiness Index 2019. Available at: <https://www.oxfordinsights.com/ai-readiness2019>). Having recognised that technological supremacy is very likely to “determine economic and military power for generations to come” (See generally, Natalie Sherman, ‘Is China gaining an edge in artificial intelligence?’ (November 12, 2019), BBC News. Available at:<https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50255191>), governments of the Global North such as China and the United States of America have been actively engaged in an “arms-race” for AI dominance. Notably, in July 2017, the State Council of China articulated an ambitious strategic plan to create a 1 trillion yuan (US$ 147.80 billion) domestic AI market with a view to establishing itself as the leading AI innovation centre by 2030. (See Andy Chun, ‘China’s AI dream is well on its way to becoming a reality’ (April 22, 2018), South China Morning Post. Available at:<https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2142641/chinas-ai-dream-well-its-way-becoming-reality>).
The governments of the United Kingdom, Europe and even Singapore have also taken a keen interest in AI and its potential to revolutionize how legal services are delivered to the public. For example, the UK government recently invested over £6 million into various AI and legal analytics projects which are significantly geared towards developing AI to the extent of facilitating the seamless resolution of legal disputes that involve emotional and difficult negotiations (See generally, Nick Hilborne, ‘Government pumps £6 million into legal AI and analytics projects’ (February 20, 2019), legal future. Available at:<https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-pumps-6m-into-legal-ai-and-analytics-projects>). This level of governmental interest and investment in AI technologies by speak compelling to the fact that there is an increased awareness of the importance of supporting law firms and other legal service providers in the adoption of advanced legal technology, like AI. There also appears to be a recognition of the fact that such an endeavour will not only improve the quality of legal services delivered to the public, but will also provide a competitive edge in the global market place.
AI, Online Courts and Access to Justice
In one of his most recent publications titled “Online Courts and the Future of Justice”, the eminent legal futurologist, Professor Richard Susskind, endeavours to make the case for the adoption of online courts to adjudicate “low value claims” presently and eventually settle other cases in the future. Among other things, Professor Susskind contends that the inauguration of online courts will improve access to the court and legal services, make it easier for everyone to better understand and enforce their legal entitlements as well as, more generally, facilitate the resolution of disputes in a speedier and less costly manner.
While the UK has displayed a measured conservatism in this emerging area of legal futurology, countries like Estonia and China have, by contrast, displayed palpable enthusiasm. By way of example, China has recently introduced a “mobile court” which has already handled more than 3 million legal cases or other judicial procedures since its March 2019 launch. The cases are presided over by an AI judge which “hears” them via video chat (The Japan Times, ‘In brave new world of China’s digital courts, judges are AI are verdicts come via chat app’ (December 7, 2019). Available at <https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/07/asia-pacific/crime-legal-asia-pacific/ai-judges-verdicts-via-chat-app-brave-new-world-chinas-digital-courts/#.Xe126ZNKgdU>). Estonia is now in the process of designing a “robot judge” that can adjudicate small claims disputes of less than £7,000 (Eric Niller, ‘Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So’ (March 25, 2019), Wired. Available at: <https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/>).
Yet in other jurisdictions, analytics have developed to the extent that they are now being used to predict how a judge is likely to rule in future cases based on the ratio decidendi of previous rulings. This has understandably given rise to some ethical concerns which ultimately led to France banning the practice and imposing a penalty of five (5) years imprisonment for those who breach it (Artificial Lawyer, ‘France Bans Judge Analytics, 5 Years in Prison for Rule Breakers’ (June 4, 2019). Available at:<https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2019/06/04/france-bans-judge-analytics-5-years-in-prison-for-rule-breakers/>).
The “technological tidal wave” currently sweeping the legal profession has re-shaped and re-defined the contours of legal practice in dynamic ways. This state of affairs therefore demands that law firms and lawyers alike be open-minded, adaptable and demonstrate a willingness to engage fully with AI and other competent technologies. Those law firms which fail to embrace and adapt to these technological developments will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage (Neil Sahota, ‘Will A.I. Put Lawyers Out of Business’ (February 9, 2019), Forbes. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/02/09/will-a-i-put-lawyers-out-of-business/#4ac5822e31f0>).The future of legal practice is AI and "resistance is futile".
Comentários