Artificial Intelligence (AI) has seen a rise in legal research and writing. However, the acceptance of AI tools vary greatly amongst law firms. Recently, a firm came forward to share its policy, vehemently denying the use of generative AI for producing legal products. In a detailed article by Peter Winders, General Counsel at the law firm Carlton Fields, he explains their stance.
The issue arises with generative AI’s reliance on an “enormous library of human works” to predict the most likely human response. This often results in fabrications and inaccuracies that Winders referred to as “hallucinations”. A robust tool should provide output that can be trusted without the user having to constantly verify its truthfulness.
Despite the fact that generative AI can help summarize a lawyer’s work and facilitate an argument’s construction, Winders argues that this summarized work would merely regurgitate the briefs without offering thoughtful analysis or judgment. The AI tool can’t ‘think’ or understand the case, it can only produce output based on predefined algorithms. Hence, the problem of inaccurate citations and claims, like those seen in the New York case, persists.
Winders also critiques the idea of using a more curated library of reliable material to train the AI, claiming that although it may reduce the occurrence of inaccurate citations, it doesn’t resolve the fundamental issue – lack of inherent analytic ability. The AI tool won’t be able to discern which authorities truly support or contradict the case based on a nuanced understanding or make appropriate analogies.
Generative AI, while holding potential for other applications, can’t be trusted to produce competent legal products, in his view. It is pointed out that the narrative generated by AI lacks actual legal understanding and judgment. Such an absence can be detrimental to clients’ cases and obstruct the critical process of legal proceedings.
Winders best sums up his concerns when he said, “I hope no court we appear before is tempted to use generative AI to write its opinion. That might be even worse.”
The stance of Winders and Carlton Fields serves as a reminder that, while AI advancements have made significant strides in many fields, there still exist sectors, such as legal practice, where human intellect, intuition, and judgment are irreplaceable.