In the legal realm, the rise of generative artificial intelligence models such as ChatGPT heralds a new era. This has prompted some district court judges to implement standing orders to regulate the use of artificial intelligence within their courts. However, this has not been without controversy.
A key argument put forth by professionals in the industry, including attorneys at Curtis, is that courts may be acting hastily. Instead of implementing sweeping mandates that might be unnecessarily burdensome or counterproductive, these attorneys assert that courts should consider adopting the standard notice and comment procedures. The article provides a deeper dive into the implications of these standing orders and the potential impact of generative artificial intelligence models on the practice of law.
While these standing orders have been seen as measures to ensure safety and regulation within the courtrooms, there is a growing concern about the pace at which they have been issued without the usual checks and balances. Lawyers argue that traditional notice and comment processes allow for a more inclusive and considered approach. Moreover, it also prevents the potential for such orders to become onerous or inadvertently stifle technological innovation in the process.
The conversation surrounding AI usage in the courts has undoubtedly just begun, and it’s one that legal professionals will want to continue to monitor closely.