An Australian driver is facing accusations of illegally using a mobile phone while driving, which contravenes Road Rules 2014 (NSW) Reg 300. The driver, however, claims that they were holding a juice box, not a phone. Jeanette Merjane, a senior associate at Lander & Rogers, is representing the driver, alongside an AI trained in legal documents.
At a session during SXSW Sydney held in a lecture hall at the University of Technology, Sydney, a demonstration titled “Can AI Win a Court Case?” explored the capabilities of AI versus human lawyers by having both argue the same case. Jeanette Merjane prepared her defense using traditional methods, while NexLaw’s Legal AI Trial Copilot was tasked with generating a defense in real-time, which a volunteer presented as if they were the defendant.
Approximately two-thirds of the audience expressed confidence that Merjane would present a stronger case, though some believed the AI might offer a compelling surprise.
AI has begun reshaping the practice of law, a field known for its demanding nature, extensive research, and complex terminology. By automating some of the laborious processes, AI could potentially reduce costs and increase accessibility to legal services. Legal AI is gaining ground worldwide, with Luminance’s legal language model, Autopilot, successfully negotiating a contract autonomously in November 2023. Similarly, a Brazilian lawmaker used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to draft tax legislation that passed, while Massachusetts State Senator Barry Finegold enlisted ChatGPT’s help in preparing a bill regulating generative AI.
Despite its potential advantages, integrating AI into the legal sphere is not without challenges. DoNotPay, a U.S. company claiming to be “the world’s first robot lawyer,” faced legal threats for proposing that its AI represent a defendant in a speeding case, leading to the cancellation of the experiment. The Federal Trade Commission’s crackdown on misleading AI claims highlighted issues with DoNotPay’s services, which failed to deliver the promised efficiency compared to human lawyers.
Brenda Tronson, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales and barrister at Level 22 Chambers, Sydney, discusses the importance of legal supervision when AI tools are involved. Tronson emphasizes the necessity for legal entities behind these tools to be qualified to provide advice.
Christian Beck, CEO of LawConnect, in an October interview, expressed confidence in their legal AI chatbot, which aims to answer legal queries from the public while integrating lawyer verification. Despite potential global deployment challenges, Beck emphasized the role of qualified lawyers in verifying the AI’s output to ensure accuracy.
LawConnect’s emphasis on qualified legal verification is in response to issues of AI accuracy and reliability. Generative AI tools are known for producing “hallucinations”—false information presented as factual—an ongoing problem in maintaining legal accuracy and accessibility.
Instances of incorrect AI usage in legal contexts include two attorneys fined in June 2023 for using ChatGPT-generated fake cases in their filings. The inherent risks of unchecked application of AI tools by legal professionals underscore the need for understanding and verification.
Moreover, ethical implications arise when incorporating AI into legal practice, concerning liability, confidentiality, and proper application. Tronson stresses the importance of using AI tools responsibly and the guidance required from legal bodies to foster understanding among lawyers.
Professor David Lindsay of UTS’ Faculty of Law, acting as a judge in the SXSW Sydney session, stated the importance of AI as a supplement to human legal expertise, rather than a replacement. The interaction between trained lawyers and AI is expected to enhance access to justice over time.
In conclusion, while AI in law presents transformative potential, significant precautions must be observed to address ethical concerns and ensure informed application across the legal landscape. The challenge lies in balancing technological integration with preserving the essential human judgment required in legal contexts.
