The rapidly evolving landscape of legal technology has garnered substantial attention from the legal community, as companies incorporate more Artificial Intelligence (AI) based tools into their offerings. Two significant examples from the previous month are Thomson Reuters’s acquisition of Casetext and LexisNexis’s rollout of Lexis+ AI.
The $650 million acquisition of Casetext has paved the way for Thomson Reuters to integrate generative AI into its platforms, including Westlaw Precision, aiming to boost AI-assisted research for its customers. Referred to as CoCounsel Core, this AI legal assistant offers lawyers eight key skills to optimize their work in legal document reviewing, database searching, contract data extraction, etc.
Simultaneously, LexisNexis launched Lexis+ AI in the U.S., introducing innovative features like conversational search, intelligent drafting, and document summarization. Users now have access to Lexis Snapshot, a new generative AI service that provides concise summaries of legal documents across the LexisNexis collection.
In tandem with these advancements, the State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) published guidance on the ethical use of generative AI in the practice of law. The guidance highlighted that the existing Rules of Professional Conduct will cover emerging issues with generative AI, albeit noting the possibility of future novel regulations as the technology continues to evolve.
- Duty of confidentiality: Lawyers must ensure the protection of confidential data within generative AI systems.
- Duty to supervise: Supervising lawyers must maintain transparent policies on AI usage, aligning with professional responsibilities.
- Client communication obligations: Lawyers should inform clients about their intent to use generative AI, consider any conflicting client directives and manage expectations accordingly.
- Technology competence: Lawyers must understand generative AI’s functioning and limitations, along with adopting meticulous review processes for AI outputs to ensure accuracy and avoid biased results.
- Charging for work produced by generative AI: Only the time spent on creating, refining, and reviewing AI outputs can be charged, but not the time saved by utilizing such technology. Any fees and costs should be clearly detailed in fee agreements.
- Candor to the tribunal and prohibition on discrimination: Before submission to courts, generative AI outputs must undergo a rigorous accuracy check, correcting any errors beforehand.
Given the swift integration of generative AI tools by top legaltech firms, the concurrent arrival of ethical guidance is both necessary and timely. With the industry’s prevailing uncertainty about the ethical deployment of AI tools, these recent developments and guidance should assuage some concerns, offering a clearer path for legal professionals to integrate AI into their practice.