top of page
Search

Beyond Briefs: The AI Revolution in Legal Practice




Writer: Catherine Holcomb

Editor: Sofia Ung


As technology continues to reshape industries, one of the most significant developments has been the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). AI has the ability to learn, reason, and act in a way that would previously require human intelligence. With the evolution of this field of science, questions and worries arise surrounding the future of the job market as human tasks are able to be completed by technology, effectively replacing the need for human labor. However, there is a chance for jobs to instead be enhanced by working alongside this expanding technology. Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM, weighs in on the expanding debate concerning the future of artificial intelligence, and the emerging relationship between humans and AI, “some people call this artificial intelligence, but the reality is this technology will enhance us. So instead of artificial intelligence, I think we’ll augment our intelligence” (Martin). Focusing on law specifically, advances in AI and automation can promote greater productivity for professions in law by increasing efficiency and making the legal system more accessible. However, there is still work to be done to ensure the accuracy of these systems before real change can be made.


As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, it is necessary for those in law's expectations, tasks, and skill-sets to progress along with technology. Professors Razaev and Tregubova, analysts of the philosophical and sociological aspects of artificial intelligence offer that in the future, “AI instruments automate and accelerate the performance of such tasks as document review, preliminary juridical examination of literature sources, and analysis of contracts” (Rezaev 568). These foundational duties that make expectations for those in law are notorious for being tedious and complex. If artificial intelligence has the ability to minimize the time it takes to review and examine documents/contracts, lawyers for example, can become more productive and use their time saved to consult and take on more cases. By becoming more productive and efficient, the need for manual work

to be done by lawyers decreases, ultimately saving firms and clients money. Bernard Marr, a technology advisor to governments and companies, suggests that instead of the physical work that is currently expected of lawyers, “tomorrow’s lawyers will be the people who develop systems that solve clients’ problems. These legal professionals will be legal knowledge engineers, legal risk managers, system development, experts in design and more” (Marr). Lawyers will be expected to work with AI, leaving them to focus primarily on the attorney-client relationship, while using their human skills to consult clients directly. Altogether, the use of artificial intelligence will transform the way lawyers work in their firms, applying a newfound productivity to meet deadlines, take on more cases, and place a greater focus on clients counsel.


Along with helping lawyers on an individual basis, AI can transform the legal system as a whole, making it more accessible. In the United States, “Only about 46% of people have access to the legal system. There are unimaginable backlogs in some court systems. For most of us, litigation takes too much time and money” (Marr). This access-to-justice problem can be mitigated and improved through the use of AI, using digitization to remodel certain characteristics of the judicial process. Marr proposes the extension of courts to the online realm, allowing citizens to submit evidence and be provided with guidance through the use of AI (Marr). Additionally, the idea of “outcome thinking”, which incorporates the use of technology to “solve disputes without requiring layers or the traditional court system”, insinuates that clients could be given a prediction about the likeliness surrounding the particular outcome of a case using a machine-learning system. While this seems like a radical idea, if people had the option to weigh the probability of their case’s success, people could potentially save money and time by avoiding the costliness of litigation knowing that their success may not be promised. However, there are important factors such as jury emotion and attorney ability to argue a case, leaving room for growth before this proposal can become a reality. Through the use of artificial intelligence and digitization, society has a unique opportunity to transform the delicate legal system to make justice more accessible.


Opponents of the integration of artificial intelligence into firms and the legal system argue that AI is biased and inaccurate. In an assessment of the current use of AI in legal practice, Jana Soukupová, the Director

of the Cabinet Department of the Minister for Science, Research, and Innovation, describes, “the problem is that data may be inaccurate and incomplete. It was already mentioned that faulty data may carry biases which are then projected into the result... data may simply be wrong, And once they are wrong, so is the outcome they produce'' (Soukupová 287). The debate surrounds lawyers’ blind trust in the information that AI provides, which further raises concerns about legal liability for the information and actions executed by AI. To alleviate these considerations, in his article, “A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again”, New York Times technology, business, and economics reporter, Steve Lohr outlines that “To help address those concerns, law firms often use software that runs on top of something like ChatGPT and is fine-tuned for legal work. The tailored software has been developed by legal tech start-ups like Casetext and Harvey” (Lohr). Similar solutions are quickly evolving to fine-tune the accuracy of artificial intelligence tools, minimizing present concerns surrounding trust in AI. Worries regarding the future of employment for lawyers is another expanding conversation as the implementation of AI begins to infiltrate other professional fields. Lohr reflects, “The impact... will be to force everyone in the profession, from paralegals to $1,000-an-hour partners, to move up the skills ladder to stay ahead of the technology” (Lohr). Instead of replacing opportunities, AI will push us to improve our own skills and work harder to adapt to a hybrid workforce. This shift in the profession will push lawyers to focus more on “offering strategic guidance and building trusted relationships with clients”, while still being the final source of complex decision-making processes and judgements (Lohr). As artificial intelligence continues to become smarter and more advanced, trust in the capabilities that lawyers can employ will grow, allowing the legal field to progress with technology.


Ultimately, the employment of artificial intelligence and automation will generate higher rates of productivity and efficiency in lawyers’ workload, making the legal system more accessible. In order to achieve this increase in productivity and promote convenient justice, ensuring the safety of both lawyers and their clients through a clear outline of ethical measures and policy is critical. In an article published through the Cambridge University Press discussing the governance of AI through ethics guidelines, lawyer and socio-legal researcher Stefan Larsson offers, “contemporary data-dependent AI should not be developed in technological isolation without continuous assessments from the perspective of ethics, cultures, and law” (Larsson). Ongoing conversation and analysis is necessary to maintain trust between users and artificial intelligence, ensuring that we are protected from the potential dangers that may arise from the usage of AI on a legal level. Artificial intelligence has the opportunity to completely reconstruct law professionals’ duties and the legal system as a whole. As a society, we must decide if we want to work against the advancing artificial intelligence machines, or work alongside the technology to enhance our abilities.


 

References


Larsson, S. (2020). On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.19

Lohr, S. (2023, April 10). A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/technology/ai-is-coming-for-lawyers-again.html

Marr, B. (2020, January 17). The Future of Lawyers: Legal Tech, AI, Big Data And Online Courts. Forbes. Retrieved from

online-courts/Martin, N. (2019, June 27). 13 Best Quotes About The Future Of Artificial Intelligence. Forbes. Retrieved from

-intelligence/Rezaev, A. V., and N. D. Tregubova. (2023). The Possibility and Necessity of the Human-Centered AI in Legal

Theory and Practice. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(2), 564–580.

https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.24Soukupová, J. (2021). AI-based Legal Technology: A Critical Assessment of the Current Use of Artificial

Intelligence in Legal Practice. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 15(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2021-2-6


Image Source: Medium

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page