{"id":75,"date":"2020-08-12T15:07:29","date_gmt":"2020-08-12T14:07:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/?p=75"},"modified":"2020-08-12T15:15:45","modified_gmt":"2020-08-12T14:15:45","slug":"the-inevitable-insurgence-of-ai-will-transform-the-legal-profession-this-begs-for-accountability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/2020\/08\/12\/the-inevitable-insurgence-of-ai-will-transform-the-legal-profession-this-begs-for-accountability\/","title":{"rendered":"The inevitable insurgence of AI will transform the legal profession – this begs for accountability."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

LAMBROS SPYROU<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Artificial\nIntelligence (AI) is already influencing the legal profession and has the\npotential to greatly influence the profession in the future. AI is currently\nbenefiting the legal profession by performing mechanical tasks and saving\nsubstantial costs and time to both large and small law firms. This impact on\nthe profession will be beneficial, contingent upon laws and regulations being\nintroduced that will impose restrictions on AI and its application within the\nprofession, so that it does not come to replace humans. This blog post will\nargue that the only way AI will be detrimental to the profession is if AI\ntechnologies eventually come to replace human lawyers and judges. However, this\nis a distant future prospect. AI technologies, in their present form, are\nbeneficial to the legal profession when they assist human lawyers in doing\ntheir every-day tasks more efficiently, accurately and providing more\ncost-effective legal advice to their clients. But, it is of paramount\nimportance that AI is regulated by the Government to ensure this vast use of AI\nin the law is trustworthy and transparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI in the legal profession<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ninfluence of AI in the legal profession is already evident from the fact that\nnumerous large law firms across the UK are using AI technologies. For instance,\nthe law firm Addleshaw Goddard (AG) is using AI to provide better results to\ntheir clients. AG is using Kira, which <\/a>\u2018is a powerful AI system\u2019<\/a>,\nused to quickly interrogate and manage large volumes of information saving\nsignificant amounts of time. Furthermore, one of the largest and most historic\nlaw firms in the UK, Freshfields, <\/a>has also invested in the AI program<\/a>,\nKira, and is consistently using this program for their every-day operations,\nsuch as reviewing contracts. Kira can identify <\/a>\u2018all agreements with potentially problematic provisions.\u2019<\/a>\nAdditionally, a relatively smaller law firm, Muckle, has been using AI\ntechnologies since 2016 to accelerate \u2018large, complex disputes<\/a>\u2019. Additionally, <\/a>a recent study<\/a> from the Coldwell\nBanker Richard Ellis (CBRE) Group, found that 89% of law firms are already\nutilising AI or have imminent plans to do so. Consequently, it is illustrated\nthat law firms, whether large or small, are willing to invest in AI\ntechnologies to facilitate mechanical, every-day tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI\nis benefiting the legal profession by saving significant costs to its clients\nwhile also providing more accurate, efficient and timely results. These\nextraordinary results enable lawyers to tackle more complex and creative tasks\nthat can make an impact on the law and society. The global consulting firm,\nMcKinsey, has asserted that <\/a>lawyers are already utilising AI technologies<\/a>\nto evaluate the thousands of documents gathered during discovery, and to\ndetermine the most important ones for further review by legal staff. The\ninternational law firm, Cleary Gottlieb used AI during discovery to determine which\nof the thousands of documents collected were documents that should not be\ninvestigated by prosecutors due to lawyer-client privilege. As one of the\nlawyers of the firm pointed out, \u201cfrom the 500,000 we started with, we quickly\nmade our way to identifying 15,000 documents that were privileged.\u201d Notably, <\/a>the cost to perform this review by AI was $50,000<\/a>,\ninstead of the potentially millions in billable hours the job usually would\nhave cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally,\nan <\/a>AI\nlawyer, CaseCruncher Alpha<\/a>, won a challenge against 100 lawyers\nfrom London\u2019s magic circle firms. The challenge was to predict whether the\nFinancial Ombudsman would authorize a claim by analysing hundreds of PPI\n(payment protection insurance) mis-selling cases. Overall, the 2 contestants\npresented 775 predictions, with the AI lawyer, CaseCruncher having an accuracy\nrate of 86.6 percent, whereas the lawyers merely obtained a 66.3 percent\ncorrect. Likewise, in a new study expressed on Hacker Noon, twenty of the USA\u2019s\ntop corporate lawyers <\/a>competed against an AI program, called the LawGeex AI<\/a>,\nto figure out who could identify the defects in five non-disclosure agreements\n(NDA) faster and with more accuracy. The challenge was set up by an impartial\nteam of specialists, including law professors from Duke, UCLA, and a senior\ncorporate lawyer. The AI program attained “an average 94 percent accuracy\nrate, higher than the lawyers, who achieved an average rate of 85 percent.\u201d\nIncredibly, \u201cit took the lawyers an average of 92 minutes to complete the NDA\nissue spotting, compared to 26 seconds for the LawGeex AI.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These\nexamples show that AI can genuinely assist lawyers in analysing these\ndocuments, and to reduce the wordiness of these documents, which can enable one\nparty to identify the main issues. Moreover, AI can reduce the costs of legal\nadvice and free up time for lawyers to concentrate on more complex tasks. An AI\nsystem that reviews contracts allows lawyers to work on \u2018higher-level tasks\u2019\nand it makes \u2018legal advice accessible and affordable for all.\u2019 There are, therefore,\nmultiple benefits of using AI within the legal profession, including\nefficiency, accuracy, costs and the ability to free up time for the lawyers to\nundertake more challenging tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

80% of consumers think that it is more significant to obtain more cost-effective legal advice than for the job of solicitors to be retained<\/a>. This, then, illustrates that clients will want to use AI because it would be more affordable and that people are, indeed, willing to use AI and do not consider it as a threat, which suggests that AI is bound for mass market acquisition. The fact that clients will be willing to receive legal advice from a law firm that encourages use of AI is shown by a statistic from PwC that 72% of business executives think \u2018AI will be the business advantage of the future.\u2019 Another incentive for clients to use AI in the UK is evident from the fact that AI is expected to add \u00a3232 billion to the UK economy by 2030<\/a> and $15.7 trillion to the global economy<\/a>. Moreover, in a keynote speech by AG, it was asserted that clients are now expecting better quality services for a lesser price.[i]<\/a> Hence, AI systems might be adopted by all law firms in the future, rendering the influence of AI systems on the legal profession, gigantic. This is comprehensively summarised in the statement of Girardi, who asserted that \u201cit may even be considered legal malpractice not to use AI one day.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could AI replace Lawyers and legal professionals?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Identifying\nthe great benefits that AI can provide the legal profession, it seems that the\nmajor detriment of AI is if it comes to replace human jobs. However, it appears\nimprobable that AI will replace human lawyers in the near future, due to the\nlimitations of its use to only mechanical tasks and the lack of interpersonal\nskills that it possesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nThomas asserts, \u201cAI is not going to replace managers, but managers who use\nAI will replace the managers who do not<\/a>.\u201d As <\/a>Richardson and Girardi both agree<\/a>,\nno matter how sophisticated AI becomes, it will never be a substitute for the\njudgment and decision-making only humans can provide. Indeed, human lawyers and\njudges can provide justice, enforce the rule of law and impact society in a way\nthat AI may never be able to do. As <\/a>Australian law firm Best Hooper<\/a>\nimplies, a client will not be able to create a relationship of trust and\nloyalty with their solicitor, if that solicitor is an AI robot.\nCorrespondingly, it is evident that AI replacing human lawyers would be\ndetrimental to the profession in terms of business efficacy. The firm continued\nto rightly acknowledge that answers to legal questions are not always black and\nwhite and therefore, AI technologies will not be able to replace human lawyers\nin the near future, since the current AI does not possess such skill. This is\nevident from the AI, CaseCruncher, which recognised that AI technologies are\nonly better at human lawyers in predicting conclusions when the question is\noutlined <\/a>\u201cprecisely\u201d<\/a>. Currently, AI can\nmerely analyse information they collect, lacking interpersonal and other skills\nrequired by a lawyer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Observer<\/a> asserted that AI is currently undertaking the tasks previously completed by entry-level lawyers and thus also issuing a warning as to the possibility of certain jobs within the legal profession being replaced.  Dodd supports the position that AI could supersede some of the mechanical tasks<\/a> completed by junior lawyers and paralegals. Correspondingly, Morison and Harkens observed that paralegals were ranked in the first quartile of those to be replaced by a study looking at the jobs that are likely to become automated in the future, because AI can scan documents to identify essential words and phrases.[ii]<\/a> In this study, lawyers due to their interpersonal, advisory roles were placed in the fourth quartile of least likely to be superseded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, AI cannot currently talk to a client or present arguments in front of a judge in a trial<\/a>. Similarly, \u201cAI\u2019s present capability meets a sizable need in the legal space by automating a number of high-volume, recurring tasks that otherwise take lawyers\u2019 focus away from more meaningful work.\u201d Consequently, it appears that entry-level lawyers will be allowed to focus on more significant tasks rather than performing recurring work, which is beneficial to both the profession and society. However, if AI manages to be able to replace human lawyers in the distant future, this could also benefit society in that it would provide cheaper legal advice to citizens. Nevertheless, since the study cited by Morison and Harkens indicated that lawyers are one of the most challenging professions to replace, if AI is able to reach this level of intelligence, which will be close to the \u2018human-level machine intelligence\u2019(HLMI) described by Bostrom,[iii]<\/a> then the very existence of humanity is under threat. As Bostrom emphasises, once a machine can surpass the general intelligence of humans; humans will no longer be the dominant life-forms on this planet and \u201cour fate would be sealed\u201d. Therefore, despite the benefit to society that the replacement of human lawyers might provide, the bigger picture indicates that this would be detrimental. Correspondingly, a collaboration between AI and humans seems the most reasonable solution, as according to Forbes, \u2018lawyers and judges are only as good as the information they receive, and AI has the potential to significantly increase the quality of information.<\/a>\u2019 Appropriately, although there are signs of AI threatening jobs within the legal profession, Richardson observes, \u201cAI isn\u2019t going to replace the need for critical thinking. We still need to prepare students to think like lawyers, and I don\u2019t think that\u2019s ever going to change.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could AI replace Judges?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judges, in the Morison and Harkens study, were ranked in the second quartile, because robot judges will provide quicker and cost-efficient judgments, with enhanced information, making justice more accessible to people. Nevertheless, although Susskind has predicted that online courts, working with disrupting technology such as AI, will intrinsically modify the duties of traditional litigators and of judges, he does not expect them to be capable of resolving \u2018the most complex and high-value disputes\u2019.[iv]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

UCL\nhas developed an AI judge that predicted the verdict of English cases\nconcerning torture and degrading treatment with a 79% accuracy. In that 79% of\ncases, the AI systems provided the exact same verdict as the court itself.\nNevertheless, improvement is to be made upon that 79% if AI technologies are to\nstart replacing human lawyers. However, what is significant about this AI judge\nis that it is able to not only consider the legal evidence, but also to\nconsider moral questions of right and wrong. This, then, illustrates that AI could\npotentially be a threat to the job of human judges in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulations on AI<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulations\nand laws are already changing around AI. Calo argued that AI-specific\nregulations will emerge, they will likely not be significant reforms but a\ncontinual, constant process of small steps that could apply to multiple areas\nincluding \u2018consumer protection, privacy and tort liability<\/a>.\u2019\nThese regulations may subsequently have to be adjusted and adapted depending on\nthe benefit or detriment that some of the AI systems will have in our lives. As\nthe <\/a>Law Society of England and Wales<\/a>\nhas emphasised, AI is still in the early stages of its development and\ntherefore, they suggest that regulations should remain limited to first gain\ncontext of its forms and the potential ramifications of its use. Similarly, <\/a>Stilgoe suggested<\/a> that we first need to\nunderstand emerging technologies before we impose appropriate regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, businesses would like\nclarity on the <\/a>regulations of the use\nof AI<\/a>.\nConsequently, as the Financial Times reports, strict regulations on AI are\ndesirable. <\/a>The LSG suggests that\nAI systems must have strict liability, which will hold them accountable<\/a>. This is consistent, with the IBM\nethical issues on AI, as they indicated that holding AI accountable is crucial for ethical\nstandards. Consequently, strict liability and the AI ethical standards\ndeveloped by IBM<\/a>, will ensure that AI will thrive in all\nareas, including the legal profession and the regulations can be sufficient to\nprevent the technologies from replacing humans. This is because the strict\nliability will apply when the AI has conducted harm to individuals and it is in\nthe interests of justice to hold the coders who created the AI accountable.\nAccordingly, despite some unexpected scenarios where the coders could not have\nanticipated the actions of AI, it is only fair that this is so. In fact, this\ndoes not have to act as a deterrent to innovation, for if the coders conduct\ntheir operations ethically, there should be no reason for AI to act\nunethically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI\nis still in its infancy. Therefore, currently there are not many regulations\nregarding the use of AI. Appropriately, the <\/a>AI Principles developed by the Organisation for Economic\nCo-operation and Development (OECD)<\/a>, to which the UK is a\nparty, recognises five values-based principles for the responsible\nadministration of reliable AI. Firstly, the OECD is proposing that AI ought to\nbenefit people and the Earth by propelling inclusive progression, sustainable\ndevelopment and prosperity. Secondly, AI systems ought to be created with the\nintention to abide by the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and\ndiversity, and they should involve proper safeguards. For instance, allowing\nhuman intervention where it is required to make sure we have a fair and just\nsociety. Likewise, <\/a>Article 22(1) of the General Data Policy Regulations (GDPR)<\/a>,\nwhich provides that decisions should not be solely automated and subsection(3)\nprovides that a data controller shall impose appropriate safeguards, which\ninclude the right of human intervention. <\/a>Calo<\/a> recognised that the EU\u2019s GDPR is\nimportant in the regulation of AI, as through the GDPR, citizens can acquire\ninformation regarding AI-based decisions influencing them. He rightly\nidentifies that public opinion is significant in this situation. If people as\ncitizens or consumers outline their distress regarding the administration of\nAI, the reputation of companies could suffer as they attempt to build\nprofitable and respectable businesses, \u201cor by governments responding to those\npublic pressures.\u201d Accordingly, the OECD continued to suggest that there should\nbe transparency and proper information given to the public regarding AI\nprograms to make sure that the public understands AI-based results and can\nchallenge them. Fourthly, AI programs shall operate in a strong, dependable and\nsafe process for the whole duration of their use and probable risks should be\ncontinually evaluated and managed. Lastly, organisations and individuals\nadvancing, establishing or running AI programs should be held responsible for\ntheir appropriate operation in alignment with the <\/a>above principles<\/a>. These recommendations\nare crucial and will likely influence numerous Government regulations. As the\nOECD has emphasised, although their recommendations are not legally binding,\nthey are extremely influential. The fact that the OECD has the power to influence\ndecisions of other organisations and governments is evident by <\/a>the\nrecognition of the G20<\/a> and their support for the suggestions\nmade by the OECD. Additionally, as Calo<\/a> asserted, just like with any disruptive\ntechnology, the government has a duty to regulate AI to be in the public\ninterest and to make certain that the costs and benefits of AI are evenly\ndispensed everywhere in society. Consequently, the common matter in all of\nthese suggestions, is the fact that AI should be used in a way that is\nbeneficial and in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Governments\nwill need to play a central role to ensure that AI is beneficial to the legal\nprofession. As Stilgoe implies, we cannot allow powerful private companies to\ncreate <\/a>unlimited emerging technologies<\/a>,\nwithout regulations. Similarly, <\/a>Google suggests that Governments take GDPR as the\nfoundation to ensure safety, privacy, fairness and accountability<\/a>.\nThe <\/a>OECD<\/a> has also urged Governments to enable\npublic and private investment in research and development to stimulate\ninnovation in reliable AI; promote attainable AI ecosystems with digital\nfacilities and technology to share information; ensure a policy setting that\nwill allow implementation of reliable AI; \nempower the AI experts and help employees adapt; and collaborate across\nborders and branches to develop honest administration of trustworthy AI. These\nregulations should be implemented immediately by Governments, as they are not\nregulations which tend to hurt innovation, they are merely ensuring that AI\ncreated from the day of the regulations onwards, is reliable. Consequently, if\nthe Government implements fair and transparent measures to the development of\nAI, it is in the right direction to beneficial and reliable AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall,\nAI is already influencing the legal profession and an even bigger impact will\nlikely be made in the future. Whilst it is highly improbable that AI will be\nable to replace human lawyers and judges in the near future, due to the lack of\ntheir interpersonal skills, there has been impressive work done by AI thus far like\nthe LawGeex\u2019s win in a challenge against human lawyers.  The use of AI technologies is currently\nbeneficial since it assists human lawyers to operate their mechanical every-day\nfunctions more efficiently, cost-effective and accurately. As Dr Aletras\nemphasises, <\/a>\u201cwe don\u2019t see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but we think\nthey\u2019d find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to\ncertain outcomes.\u201d<\/a> These powerful incentives will drive the\nmass market success of AI in the legal profession. However, the use of AI will\nonly be beneficial assuming that fair and transparent AI is imposed by the\nGovernment to ensure that AI is trustworthy, ethical and enforced in a way that\nprevents the replacement of human lawyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> Addleshaw Goddard Guest Lecture, \u2018Legal Technology\u2019 (Newcastle University, Law School Lecture Theatre, 23 October 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ii]<\/a> John Morison and Adam Harkens, \u2018Re-engineering justice? Robot judges, computerised courts and (semi) automated legal decision-making\u2019 (2019) 39 Legal Studies 619; R. Susskind Tomorrow\u2019s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iii]<\/a> Nick Bostrom, \u2018Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies\u2019 (Oxford University Press, 1st edn, 2014) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iv]<\/a> R Susskind Tomorrow\u2019s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2017) 121<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lambros Spyrou\ngraduated from Newcastle Law School in 2020 and developed this blog post\nout of his project on the Research Topic in Law and Emerging Technologies\nModule. <\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LAMBROS SPYROU Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already influencing the legal profession and has the potential to greatly influence the profession in the future. AI is currently benefiting the legal profession by performing mechanical tasks and saving substantial costs and time … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3730,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[8,7],"class_list":["post-75","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorised","tag-emergingtechologies","tag-researchtopic"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3730"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75\/revisions\/85"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelrn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}