Artificial Intelligence v. Lawyers’ Sound Independent Judgment
Though artificial intelligence (“AI”) remains a largely unknown quantity, AI continues to make huge strides into our daily lives. Even some lawyers venture to use AI in their practice, saving massive amounts of time and expense in the process. However, this post is an admonition to these courageous (yet, possibly foolhardy) lawyers who tread the ever-changing waters of AI (“AI”) in their legal practice.
Don’t Blindly Rely on Online Research, It’s Often Wrong
The leading AI group, ChatGPT, can produce vast volumes of information in an instant; however, ChatGPT has a shaky track record when it comes to legal cases. To start, ChatGPT currently only has knowledge leading up to 2021. ChatGPT cannot brief a recent case. Further, ChatGPT has inaccuracies in the cases it briefs. ChatGPT and AI’s knowledge is limited to what it is taught. If the case is not widely known, chances are ChatGPT and other AI groups don’t have information on it either. Further, it may brief the wrong case or make a case up entirely.
Read the Cases You Cite
I point you to the cautionary tale of Steven Schwartz (“Schwartz”), found here. Recently, Steven Schwartz, a lawyer who has been practicing for 30 years, used ChatGPT to find cases under the assumption it was a “super search engine”. ChatGPT produced multiple cases that he cited in his brief. However, ChatGPT made all the cases made up. When the judge asked Schwartz whether he had read any of the cases he cited, he simply replied with “no.” You can imagine how the rest of the case went for Schwartz…
Even as AI progresses, it is important for well-seasoned lawyers, up-and-coming law students, and even pro se litigants, to not blindly rely on information produced from AI, read the cases you cite. Schwartz assumed the veracity of the information from ChatGPT because it produced a seemingly great cases with seemly real citations, and we all know what assuming does…[1]
Instead – Add Value to Your Clients
The true value of a lawyer lies not with good legal research, nor good legal writing but instead rests upon a lawyer’s sound independent judgment. When relying upon other people, or AI, a lawyer does not provide their own independent judgment, and often times, it is certainly not sound, see the case of Schwartz as Exhibit A.
Being a lawyer is hard work, particularly if you practice correctly. It’s time-consuming, complex, and confusing. One the one hand, good lawyers are problem solvers. On the other hand, AI creates more problems than it solves. The best way to obtain the best solution to a client’s problem is to use your resources and hammer it out yourself. At the end of the day, if all is done correctly, absent the AI shortcuts and shortcomings, the client will be the winner.
[1] It makes an ass out of u and me.
To learn more about Artificial Intelligence v. Lawyers’ Sound Independent Judgment, please contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.
