The emergence of generative AI has prompted a meticulous reevaluation of entrenched practices, particularly within the legal domain. This reassessment revolves around how emerging technologies may transform relationships involving lawyers, technologists, and clients. AI’s influence extends to every aspect of society, with the legal profession actively grappling with the implications. Two interconnected questions underline the dual nature of this technology, as epitomized by tools like ChatGPT.
The first question revolves around seamlessly integrating AI into the legal profession to augment the work of legal professionals. Automation tools such as ChatGPT offer opportunities to streamline legal work, from drafting contracts to generating skeletal judgments. Law firms globally are experimenting with integrating robo-lawyers, signaling a new era where human expertise and AI capabilities coalesce.
However, the optimistic perspective is juxtaposed with the disconcerting issue of AI potentially replacing tasks traditionally performed by lawyers. This inevitable question prompts a significant reshaping of the legal profession, raising concerns about the potential displacement of legal practitioners by advanced AI systems. This aspect serves as a poignant reminder of the dual nature of technology, presenting both opportunities and challenges that demand careful consideration. The relentless advancement of technology heightens demands on lawyers, increasing expectations regarding proficiency in data science, algorithms, and AI. The current landscape reveals a noticeable informational gap within the legal profession, with a majority lacking formal training in these evolving technologies.
Thus, any future AI integration into legal practices will necessitate a fundamental upskilling, requiring legal professionals to grasp at least the basics of these technologies. The question arises: should lawyers aspire to become AI experts? Achieving this may be unattainable for the current generation of legal professionals. Collaborating with AI experts is a more practical alternative, introducing a potential reliance on AI. Tailoring AI tools to the needs of lawyers requires input from legal professionals, creating an interdisciplinary process susceptible to technological dynamism. AI might render the legal profession more complex, driven by technology rather than client needs and legal principles. The complexity arising from AI’s influence extends beyond internal dynamics, reshaping the relationship between lawyers and clients. The use of AI in legal work significantly impacts the liability and professional obligations of legal advisors towards their clients. Lawyers are duty-bound to provide clear, nonmisleading information, convoluted by AI for two primary reasons.
Firstly, lawyers must possess a deep understanding of AI tools to effectively explain their reasoning. The current digital literacy of many lawyers is limited, exacerbating the challenge. Even among those considered experts, the inherent ‘black box’ problem in AI decision-making poses difficulties in tracing the rationale behind AI-generated decisions. This opacity compromises lawyers’ ability to fulfill their duty of keeping clients informed, engendering a layer of ambiguity into legal proceedings. The autonomous learning abilities of AI systems, especially neural networks, initiate unpredictability. These systems can develop unforeseen features, leading to unexpected outcomes and errors. AI tools may also generate seemingly accurate but hallucinated information. This unpredictability and associated risks pose significant challenges, potentially causing harm to clients and legal consequences for legal professionals.
A recent incident in the United States vividly illustrates these challenges. An attorney used ChatGPT to compose legal briefs but faced issues when the tool created authorities to support its arguments. Consequently, the lawyer now faces sanctions, underscoring the challenges of ensuring clear and accurate information when using AI in the professional domain. These problems extend beyond the professional sphere and significantly impact the public’s confidence in the legal field. The emergence of ‘robolawyers,’ automated legal guidance, and the potential dangers of AI-driven document creation could undermine clients faith in the human elements of legal transactions. Trust is vital in the lawyer-client relationship, as clients depend on attorneys to comprehend their issues and offer advice with compassion and legal ingenuity. Utilizing ChatGPT for legal assistance raises significant apprehensions regarding grasping clients’ requirements and emulating human rapport and legal proficiency. Is it feasible for individuals to confidently seek transformative counsel from an automated system? Some may tentatively affirm this notion. The perception that human lawyers are flawless dismisses the reality that even the most skilled attorneys have their limitations.
This raises the question: should trust in human lawyers be entirely abandoned? However, adopting such a stance overlooks the imperfections inherent in machines, akin to automation bias in other fields. Both human and machine entities have unique flaws, some of which are not fully understood. The legal profession faces the challenge of striking a balance between integrating new technologies to address human errors and preserving the distinctive human qualities defining legal practice. This demands careful navigation between maintaining the essential human aspect of the law and not blindly relying on imperfect and evolving technologies.
The central question is whether we can maintain the same level of respect for legal experts if we knew they were essentially nothing more than taciturn automated machines. This underscores the significant impact of AI on the practical facets of the legal profession and the deeply ingrained human perceptions associated with it. The legal community must adapt and evolve alongside new technologies, addressing the complexities introduced by AI and actively engaging with advancements to mitigate risks and improve effectiveness.
Muhammad Siddique Ali Pirzada
The writer is a freelancer pursuing his Bachelors of Law from University of London.
