
While it may be a little early to declare that the end of lawyers due to the emergence of generative artificial intelligence has been greatly exaggerated, the recent account of a lawyer who used such technology assist him in the submission of a court filing should serve as a cautionary tale. The lawyer relied on such AI to find cases for him that seemed to support his client’s position. And they did. The only problem was those cases didn’t exist. The AI made them up. Making matters worse, when the lawyer asked the AI whether the cases were real, the AI said that they were, even though they most definitely were not. This lawyer is now in quite a bit of hot water with the court, and I would imagine some sort of disciplinary action against him may follow. What this account suggests is that generative AI is not exactly ready to eat the legal profession’s lunch.
Now, that’s not to say that the practice of law is not changing or that it won’t change as a result of artificial intelligence and machine learning. What is needed, however, is a clear understanding of not just what AI can do, but also what it should do, and what services living, breathing lawyers should continue to provide. In addition, since many Americans face their legal problems without the assistance of a lawyer, it is possible that AI can help address the nation’s considerable access to justice problem: the fact that fifty percent of middle-income and eighty-percent of low-income Americans face their legal problems without a lawyer.
At this remarkable moment in the evolution of technology in general, when legal technology in particular might help transform the practice of law, a sober and honest assessment of what legal technology might do well can help us understand the ways it may help provide legal guidance and assistance to those who presently are unable to afford or access legal help. What should precipitate this inquiry though is the development of an understanding of what it is that lawyers do, and when the guidance of a lawyer is needed to protect legal rights, help people order their affairs, and preserve the rule of law. To the extent AI can help lawyers achieve those things in more efficient and effective ways, and, in doing so, extend the promise of legal assistance to more Americans, the technology will aid the profession in serving its purposes in society. But unthinking adoption of technology for technology’s sake, or to cut corners, is not going to help anyone, and is only likely to make matters worse, harming clients and the community along the way.
I explore some of these questions in an article forthcoming in the Florida State University Law Review: “What’s a Lawyer For?: Artificial Intelligence and Third-Wave Lawyering.” You can access it here. It is still very much in draft form. Comments always welcome.
In addition, in a piece forthcoming in the Washburn Law Journal, I assess what it will mean to prepare law students for the technology-infused practice of law: “Teaching to the Tech: Law Schools and the Duty of Technology Competence.” Available here.
(And if you were wondering, yes, the image above was generated using generative AI.)