NEWS
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.
Adroid standing by
cabinet with law books