Artificial Intelligence and the Legal System

Writer: Ava Seaborn

Editor: Jorge Astorga

Artificial intelligence has garnered attention from the general public in recent years, with the development of user-friendly models such as Chat-GPT. People across all industries worldwide have faced the positive and negative consequences of AI. But with such a new and developing tool, it is crucial to understand how it has and will continue to affect the workforce–specifically the legal field.

The judicial system in the United States has faced criticism from citizens for a variety of reasons, one being access to legal services. Access to appropriate legal accommodations has been a long disputed point of public interest as it is expensive. While the state provides legal representation to some degree, the quality of the representation heavily depends on the amount of money a person in the court is willing to spend. The legal process is long and tedious, and quality representation makes all the difference. AI can be used to grant better access to more individuals as it can cut down on the amount of time it takes to review and analyze information from various sources, sort through legal documents, and identify relative laws and cases. This leaves more time for legal advocates to understand the case (Bloomberg 2023). This in turn could streamline the process for clients and help to give them a better understanding of the case.

This poses significant advancements for the legal field and in all areas of work–AI is still being developed and modified, meaning it fails to be accurate 100% of the time. “Hallucinations” occur when these chatbots spit out false responses or generate information that may seem plausible but is factually incorrect (Lu 2024). These errors are reported to occur anywhere from 3-27% of the time, depending on the model. While there are higher quality models out there, any room for error can be detrimental to a case when gathering or organizing information using AI–meaning that while AI can still be used as a tool to expedite some of these processes, careful human oversight is still vital to the accuracy of a case.

Another thing to consider is that these AI models are created by identifying patterns and trends from previous information or cases in this situation. The criminal justice system in the United States has long been critiqued for reinforcing negative stereotypes–upholding classist, misogynistic, racist, and ableist beliefs that hinder the social progression made by society. While progress has been made, much growth is still needed. It should be noted that AI tools only have the memory and knowledge of the U.S. legal system through cases from the past. This means that while judges can and have started to use AI in determining the sentencing of a case, AI can only create a response based on the past–which, from a judicial standpoint, has been known to have favored wealthy white men. This raises the concern of AI reinforcing negative stereotypes and diminishing or slowing down the progress made in recent decades.

Overall, AI’s use in the legal system is something that we as citizens should still be wary of, and it still requires much human oversight. That being said, we should also train ourselves to be more familiar with its algorithms and methodology, as it is something we as a society will only continue to see more of. An understanding of how it works can help us to identify its shortcomings while still using it as a tool to advance our work–especially in the legal process.

---

References

Lu, Rongfei. “Council Post: Leveraging AI to Enhance pro Bono Legal Services: A New Era of Access to Justice.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 Oct. 2024, www.forbes.com/councils/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2024/10/14/leveraging-ai-to-enhance-pro -bono-legal-services-a-new-era-of-access-to-justice/.

“The Real Impact of AI in Legal Research.” Bloomberg Law, 19 Sept. 2024, pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/technology/ai-impact-on-legal-research/#:~:text=The%20u nmatched%20speed%20of%20AI,profits%2C%20and%20greater%20client%20satisfaction.

Image Source: British Institute of International and Comparative Law