Adroid standing by
cabinet with law books
ARTICLES
&
RESOURCES
February 1, 2025
Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Policy
on Artificial Intelligence Use in Judiciary
______
November 11, 2024
The Implications of ChatGPT
For Legal Services and Society
Andrew Perlman
Suffolk University Law School
[Abstract]
On November 30, 2022, OpenAI released a chatbot called ChatGPT.1 To demonstrate the chatbot’s sophistication and its potential implications, both for legal services and society more generally, most of this paper was generated in about an hour through prompts within ChatGPT. Only this abstract, the preface, the outline headers, the footnotes, the epilogue, and the prompts were written by a person. ChatGPT generated the rest of the text with no human editing. To be clear, the responses generated by ChatGPT were imperfect and at times problematic, and the use of an AI tool for law-related services raises a host of regulatory and ethical issues. At the same time, ChatGPT highlights the promise of artificial intelligence, including its ability to affect our lives in both modest and more profound ways. ChatGPT suggests an imminent reimagination of how we access and create information, obtain legal and other services, and prepare people for their careers. We also will soon face new questions about the role of knowledge workers in society, the attribution of work (e.g., determining when people’s written work is their own), and the potential misuse of and excessive reliance on the information produced by these kinds of tools.
The disruptions from AI’s rapid development are no longer in the distant future. They have arrived, and this document offers a small taste of what lies ahead.
______
October 4, 2024
Artificial Intelligence for Learning the Law: Generative AI for Academic Support in Law Schools and Universities - Report of Experiments
Michael D. Murray
University of Kentucky, J. David Rosenberg College of Law
[Abstract Excerpt]
This paper reports the Part I experiments and their qualitative and comparative findings comparing the performance of public-facing general purpose LLMs—Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Copilot, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT-4o Omni—and a law-specific LLM with a curated legal dataset, Lexis+ AI, and it will reveal which systems performed the best as personalized, self-guided, one-on-one law tutors. It also reports the Part II experiments on using a generative AI system, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, as a personalized one-on-one tutor to improve a novice learner’s performance on objective examinations in subjects the learner has never studied.
______
September 19, 2024
The Future is Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession
International Bar Association (IBA) and the Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP)
[Excerpts]
Key findings include:
• there is widespread AI adoption with regional and size disparities. The larger the law firm, the greater, better, and more sophisticated the integration of AI;
• AI is primarily used internally for back-office administration, business development, marketing and organisational management. Again, in larger law firms, there is a higher percentage of AI usage in client-facing applications such as legal research, document assembly, contract drafting and due diligence, driven by large language models (LLMs) and AI services.
• data governance, security, intellectual property (IP) and privacy remain significant challenges in AI governance, regardless of the law firm’s size. Smaller law firms and solo practitioners are facing more challenges in terms of AI governance and often lack policies and resources;
• there is an expectation that AI will have a significant impact on law firm structure, hiring and business models. This could include shifts towards fixed or value-added fees, changes in hiring policies to prioritise AI-competent attorneys and a broader cultural shift towards innovation and change; and
• training is a key priority in the context of AI. Law firms need extensive training, primarily to overcome trust issues, mitigate risk and unlock AI’s full potential. Law firms also need to continue training younger associates on legal work that may be carried out by AI, which allows them to have well-rooted expertise when they reach senior roles.
…
Ethically,
• lawyers must keep abreast of changes in technology relevant to their practice. This includes understanding AI and its implications, ensuring lawyers can competently use AI tools while being aware of the ethical challenges and risks involved;
• lawyers must be diligent in ensuring professional conduct rules and guidance standards are upheld when using AI technologies. Existing rules emphasise the importance of maintaining confidentiality and professional secrecy, especially in electronic communications and data stored on computers;
• lawyers are responsible for supervising AI tools and ensuring their proper use. They must ensure that AI-generated work adheres to professional standards and that any legal work produced with AI meets the required ethical guidelines ; and
• lawyers should inform their clients when they have made use of AI, disclosing the scope of such use and the type of AI used.
..
iii. Approaches in different jurisdictions
The American Bar Association (ABA) has established a Task Force dedicated to addressing AI in legal contexts. This Task Force emphasises the importance of technological competence and ethical issues such as confidentiality and supervision, ensuring that lawyers are equipped to handle AI technologies responsibly and effectively within their practice. On the state level, New Jersey has issued guidelines that highlight critical aspects of AI use, including accuracy, honesty, confidentiality and the prevention of misconduct. These guidelines are designed to ensure that AI tools are used ethically and that their outputs meet the high standards required in the legal profession. In addition, the State Bar of California provides comprehensive guidance on the use of AI in law. This guidance emphasises the need for confidentiality, competence, supervision and a thorough understanding of ethical considerations. The detailed recommendations help lawyers navigate the complexities of integrating AI into their practices. Also in the US, Florida’s ethical guidelines focus on key areas such as confidentiality, oversight, costs and advertising related to AI-generated work. By addressing these aspects, the guidelines aim to ensure that AI use in legal practice is both transparent and accountable. Most recently, the ABA has issued a Formal Opinion (Formal Opinion 512) that states that to ensure clients are protected, lawyers and law firms using generative AI tools must ‘fully consider their applicable ethical obligations’, which include duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to ensure candour toward the tribunal and to charge reasonable fees consistent with time spent using generative AI.
_____________
September 3, 2024
Ethics guidance for generative AI use
Minnesota State Bar Association
By Susan M. Humiston
“On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512, entitled “Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools.” This opinion joins good ones from Florida and California in providing helpful guidance to lawyers on how to ethically incorporate generative AI—a subset of AI technology—into your practice.1 Opinion 512 is recommended to all who have even a minor interest in this topic, have considered using generative AI tools, or have already been using such tools in their practice. Because Minnesota generally follows the model rules of relevance on this topic, Opinion 512 is particularly instructive for Minnesota lawyers. This column presents a high-level summary.”
_____________
August 5, 2024
Transformative technologies (AI) challenges and principles of regulation
Data Regulation Platform
"New governance frameworks, protocols, and policy systems are needed for the new digital era to ensure all-inclusive and equitable benefits. Societies need regulatory approaches that are not only human-led and human-centred but also nature-led and nature-centred. Government policies need to balance public interests, such as human dignity and identity, trust, nature preservation and climate change, and private sector interests, such as business disruptiveness and profits. As novel business models emerge, such as fintech[3] and the sharing economy[4], regulators are faced with a host of challenges: rethinking traditional regulatory models, coordination problems, regulatory silos, and the robustness of outdated rules.”
_____________
July 30, 2024
Embracing Artificial Intelligence: The Future of Legal Practice
DAC Beachcroft
Simon Konsta, Gill Burnett & Connor Scott
“The integration of AI into the legal profession is transforming how legal services are delivered, with improved efficiency and new capabilities that were previously unimaginable. Lawyers will need to embrace AI to remain relevant and competitive in an increasingly tech-driven industry. Lawyers with strong technical IT skills will be needed to manage the changes required to make AI a part of day-to-day legal practice.”
_____________
July 24, 2024
The Future Of Legal Tech: How AI And Automation Enhance Client Service
Scoop Sci-Tech
The legal profession deals with complex issues but it is ultimately about the clients. Here is how AI and automation help enhance client service.
_____________
July 16, 2024
Generative AI in the modern lawyer’s toolbox
Florida State Bar Journal
Jim Ash, Senior Editor
Indiana University Law Professor Josh Kubicki: “When considering investing in a generative AI tool, lawyers would be wise to ask the creator how the system prompts are designed. … It’s one way for you as a consumer to lift the hood on these tools and engage in a meaningful conversation around how these models are trained and what their purpose is. When we do understand that we become better users.”
_____________
July 1, 2024
AI and the practice of law: Major impacts to be aware of in 2024
Thompson Reuters
Generative AI’s impact on lawyers
Risks and ethical implications
Impact on consumers and clients
_____________
Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence Addressing the Legal Challenges of AI
American Bar Association
AI for Legal Professionals
The Law Society of New South Wales
A SOLICITOR’S GUIDE TO RESPONSIBLE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
NEWS & OPINIONS
JAMES GAUTHIER, Plaintiff,
v.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant.
Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-281.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas.
November 25, 2024.
“Here, Monk submitted the Response without reading the cases cited, or even confirming the existence or validity of the cases included therein. In fact, it is unclear what legal research, if any, Monk completed before filing the Response. Furthermore, after Goodyear specifically identified the nonexistent legal authorities contained in the Response, Monk took no action to verify his research. He failed to withdraw or otherwise address theses issues when raised by Goodyear. In fact, Monk's sur-reply to Goodyear's reply makes no mention of the problems inherent in the Response. "This silence is deafening." Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd., No. 5:21-CV-00064, 2024 WL 3520170, at *7 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2024). It was only after the court entered the Show Cause Order that Monk sought leave to amend the Response. Monk's conduct reveals that he "failed to determine that the argument he made was `legally tenable.'" Park, 91 F.4th at 615 (quoting Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393). The Response presents a false statement of law to the court, and it appears that Monk failed to make a reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent into the validity of the arguments he presented. Moreover, he failed to correct these issues when opposing counsel identified them.
Accordingly, the court finds the following sanctions are appropriate to deter future improper submissions:
• Monk is ordered to pay a $2,000 penalty into the registry of the court;
• Monk is ordered to attend a continuing legal education course, for a minimum of one-hour Texas MCLE credit, on the topic of generative A.I. in the legal field and submit proof to the court of his attendance by February 3, 2025; and
• Monk is ordered to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff and to file certification on the docket in this case attesting that he has done so within 21 days of this order.”
Park v. Kim, 91 F. 4th 610 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2024
“PLAINTIFF'S IMPROPER BRIEFING BEFORE THIS COURT
“We must also address a separate matter concerning the conduct of Park's counsel, Attorney Lee. Park's reply brief in this appeal was initially due May 26, 2023. After seeking and receiving two extensions of time, Attorney Lee filed a defective 614*614 reply brief on July 25, 2023, more than a week after the extended due date. On August 1, 2023, this Court notified Attorney Lee that the late-filed brief was defective, and set a deadline of August 9, 2023, by which to cure the defect and resubmit the brief. Attorney Lee did not file a compliant brief, and on August 14, 2023, this Court ordered the defective reply brief stricken from the docket. Attorney Lee finally filed the reply brief on September 9, 2023.[2]
The reply brief cited only two court decisions. We were unable to locate the one cited as "Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep't 2014)." Appellant's Reply Br. at 6. Accordingly, on November 20, 2023, we ordered Park to submit a copy of that decision to the Court by November 27, 2023. On November 29, 2023, Attorney Lee filed a Response with the Court explaining that she was "unable to furnish a copy of the decision." Response to November 20, 2023, Order of the Court, at 1, Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2023), ECF No. 172 (hereinafter, "Response"). Although Attorney Lee did not expressly indicate as much in her Response, the reason she could not provide a copy of the case is that it does not exist — and indeed, Attorney Lee refers to the case at one point as "this non-existent case." Id. at 2.
Attorney Lee's Response states:
I encountered difficulties in locating a relevant case to establish a minimum wage for an injured worker lacking prior year income records for compensation determination.... Believing that applying the minimum wage to in injured worker in such circumstances under workers' compensation law was uncontroversial, I invested considerable time searching for a case to support this position but was unsuccessful.
...
Consequently, I utilized the ChatGPT service, to which I am a subscribed and paying member, for assistance in case identification. ChatGPT was previously provided reliable information, such as locating sources for finding an antic furniture key. The case mentioned above was suggested by ChatGPT, I wish to clarify that I did not cite any specific reasoning or decision from this case.
Id. at 1-2 (sic).
All counsel that appear before this Court are bound to exercise professional judgment and responsibility, and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other obligations, Rule 11 provides that by presenting a submission to the court, an attorney "certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances... the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2); see also N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct 3.3(a) (McKinney 2023) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of ... law to a tribunal."). "Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact, [and] legally tenable." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). "Under Rule 11, a court may sanction an 615*615 attorney for, among other things, misrepresenting facts or making frivolous legal arguments." Muhammad v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 732 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely. Indeed, we can think of no other way to ensure that the arguments made based on those authorities are "warranted by existing law," Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), or otherwise "legally tenable." Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447. As a District Judge of this Circuit recently held when presented with non-existent precedent generated by ChatGPT: "A fake opinion is not `existing law' and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law. An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system." Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22CV01461(PKC), 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 460-61 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).
Attorney Lee states that "it is important to recognize that ChatGPT represents a significant technological advancement," and argues that "[i]t would be prudent for the court to advise legal professionals to exercise caution when utilizing this new technology." Response at 2. Indeed, several courts have recently proposed or enacted local rules or orders specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence tools before the court.[3] But such a rule is not necessary to inform a licensed attorney, who is a member of the bar of this Court, that she must ensure that her submissions to the Court are accurate.
Attorney Lee's submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was "legally tenable." Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447. The brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented. We 616*616 therefore REFER Attorney Lee to the Court's Grievance Panel pursuant to Local Rule 46.2 for further investigation, and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. See 2d Cir. R. 46.2.”
October 14, 2024
Washington judge bans use of AI-enhanced video
as trial evidence
State of Washington v. Puloka
Attorneys for the defendant, charged in the 2012 killing of three individuals, sought to introduce cellphone video evidence enhanced by AI. Prosecutors objected. In a March 29, 2024 ruling, King County Superior Court Judge Leroy McCullogh refused to admit the pre-offered exhibit.
_______
Deepfakes in the courtroom: US judicial panel debates new AI evidence rules
_______
October 10, 2024
Navigating the AI Frontier: Balancing Breakthroughs and Blind Spots
by Ralph Losey
“Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the legal industry, offering unprecedented efficiencies while posing new challenges. Two recent scientific studies—Larger and More Instructable Language Models Become Less Reliable, and Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier, highlight a critical issue: as AI systems grow more powerful, they remain prone to errors, especially in tasks just beyond their capabilities. One article calls this the jagged frontier and both note the zig-zag edge of its capabilities is counter-intuitive. AI and its jagged frontier present both opportunities and risks for legal professionals. It is imperative we navigate AI’s unpredictable nature, ensuring the technology is used to augment, not compromise, legal practice.”
_______
Legal AI Careers Prospects and Opportunities:
Navigating the Future of Law
Law Fuel
Excerpt
Institutions like Harvard Law School and Yale Law School are introducing courses that focus on AI’s implications in the legal field and such career oppotunities continue to arise.
_______
Netherlands lower court use of GenAI in a ruling sparks controversy
CMS Netherlands, August 15, 2024
“Clearly, the development of GenAI cannot be reversed and increasingly will be used in every sector, even in the judicial system. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the outcomes will be unacceptable or in violation of rights.
It is important that GenAI not be viewed as a reliable source, but as a method for finding reliable sources. Although GenAI is a whole new source for gathering information, issues of fair hearing regarding factual judgments formed on the basis of GenAI can be approached in the same way as one tends to do with traditional methods of information gathering. GenAI tools often offer the ability to display references to an answer. If a judge uses these references to check the sources of the answer for reliability, considers whether the data is reasonably open to dispute and, if so, submits the data to the litigating parties so that they can assess and comment on them, the principle of fair hearing is observed. Adapting to these developments takes time, but when used properly, generative AI can be a useful way to conduct research and reach conclusions, even judicial ones.”
_______
CJI (Chief Justice India) Chandrachud welcomes use of AI in mundane works for legal profession
Deccan Herald, August 10, 2024
“With the help of an artificial intelligence software called Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software or SUVAS, the Supreme Court is actively translating its judgements and orders into regional languages. We are working hard to expand this initiative and translate the judgements of the Supreme Court in all scheduled languages, he said.”
_______
ABA issues first ethics guidance on
a lawyer’s use of AI tools
Chicago, July 29, 2024
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released today its first formal opinion covering the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in the practice of law, pointing out that model rules related to competency, informed consent, confidentiality and fees principally apply. Formal Opinion 512
_______
US judge makes 'unthinkable' pitch to use AI to interpret legal texts
Reuters, May 29, 2024
Nate Raymond
JAMES SNELL d/b/a OUTDOOR EXPRESSIONS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
2024 US. App. LEXIS 12733*; __ F4th __ (11 Cir., 05/28/24)
Newsom, J., Concurring1 NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the Court’s judgment and join its opinion in full. I write separately (and I’ll confess this is a little unusual[1] simply to pull back the curtain on the process by which I thought through one of the issues in this case—and using my own experience here as backdrop, to make a modest proposal regarding courts’ interpretations of the words and phrases used in legal instruments.
Here’s the proposal, which I suspect many will reflexively condemn as heresy, but which I promise to unpack if given the chance: Those, like me, who believe that “ordinary meaning” is the foundational rule for the evaluation of legal texts should consider—consider—whether and how AI-powered large language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic’s Claude might—might—inform the interpretive analysis. There, having thought the unthinkable, I’ve said the unsayable. …”
[1] Even for me.