online – Law and Innovation

I very much enjoy Sci-Fi movies about artificial intelligence, but I am not particularly keen on being replaced by a machine that can spew out better legal arguments in a milli-second based on an algorithm. The majority of our class discussions have focused primarily on technological innovations in the legal field. Artificial intellegence has been hailed as the future of law. It’s all very exciting, until the foreboding feeling sets in and you’re reminded that not only do you have to compete with 4.0 Bobby for a job, but with a machine as well. According to Michael Cross in his article, Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law, “ a computer is as fresh and alert at 2 am as it was at nine o’ clock the previous morning.” Yeah, well, no arguments there. Computers will always be faster, more efficient and accurate at any given time of the day.

The abstracts from the 14^th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law sum up the relationship between law and artificial intelligence eloquently. Both fields are involved in the process of creation. AI systems are built, experiments are designed and paradigms are replaced. In law, legislation is drafted, precedents are set and beliefs are balanced. Both fields struggle with the complexity of modeling human behaviour. AI aims to recreate human behaviour, while the law intends to drive human behaviour. The meeting of law with AI was inevitable. But where does that leave the plethora of graduating law students and lawyers?

Throughout this class, we have all been reminded of the concept of the “legal sherpa” and helping the ordinary lay person navigate the convoluted path of the law. A more refined role for AI in law is to provide strategic legal guidance. Programs such as ROSS a digital legal expert, built on IBM Watson helps attorneys with their legal research based on plain word searches. This serves as a valuable tool to help guide lawyers in their everyday research. In the end this will make legal profesisonals more effective because they will be able to complete their tasks more efficiently therefore charging the client less for services.

London firm Hodge Jones & Allen has pioneered a predictive model of personal injury case outcomes to assess the predictability of their current caseload. The program will assist the firm in determining which cases have a greater chance of success, therefore allowing the firm to direct their client towards either settling or proceeding with a claim. This is an example of a legal technological advancement in action and in the future personal injury firms and perhaps others as well, may greatly benefit from using such programs.

This new technology will not hinder or replace legal professionals at all. In fact, I see it helping to make the jobs of lawyers easier and more enjoyable. It will also help them bring a wider array of services to their clients in a quicker and more streamlined manner. These advancements will thrust lawyers into more advocacy-based roles because those types of positions cannot be fulfilled by AI, at least not for now. In conclusion, I do not believe that lawyers will ever fully be replaced by AI but it can serve as a useful tool that can better the practice of law.

In Chapter 6 of Richard Susskind’s book “Tomorrow’s Lawyers”, he discusses the status quo of how law firms have operated historically, and just how risky these traditions may be in the current global economic and social markets.

In working for a medium sized full service law firm this past summer, I absolutely agree with the concerns surrounding the sustainability of the traditional model of law firm operations. Considering costs associated with the practice in addition to the “extras” which the large firms consider to be a part of the basic “necessities”, it is clear that the amount of money being generated and spent goes beyond what can reasonably be sustained in the current economy. These include corporate lunches, dinners and parties. Although my firm is a medium sized firm, the partnership was always keen on ensuring that the lawyers felt appreciated by hosting lunches, dinners, marketing and networking events in addition to an annual retreat.

It would be a lie to say that I was not happy to receive such generosity and appreciation by my superiors and colleagues, however, I have to be honest in admitting that these “extras” are not as “necessary” as we’d like to think they are.

When I think about where the money comes from to provide such gifts to the lawyers at the firm, I always end up with one source; the clients. It seems problematic to use funds allocated and paid for legal services towards personal expenses in house. However, this has always been “the way”.

Susskind notes that “lawyers have for many years performed routine work for which they have been overqualified and for which, in turn, they have been overcharging”.

Does the above statement explain why the traditional model has become entrenched in firm culture? I would argue that the compensation received from clients for legal services must cover the special knowledge, understanding and reassurance that a lawyer provides their client. Namely, clients pay to have a lawyer deal with their matter in order for them to feel as relaxed as possible with their predicament. The specialized and privileged access to information granted to lawyers is also a chargeable service in my view. Considering the average law school education amounts to sixty or so thousand dollars excluding undergraduate or postgraduate studies, it seems understandable why young lawyers are eager to join a firm where they will have the potential to grow into a gainful practice that follows the traditional model.

Susskind is correct however in stating that “to survive and thrive I suspect most will need to [make] changes to enable the changes from their current approach to a new, sustainable, longer-term business model.”

Personally, I think the primary issue is that clients are able to access plenty of information online through a variety of platforms, including digital lawyer substitutes. These substitutes offer users an online, self-serve options in drafting routine documents such as leases, powers of attorney, etc. Other sites offer legal advice, etc.

If law firms perceived these substitute services as legitimate threats to their business then change would likely arise. However, law firms, specifically the large global firms, do not recognize the threat and therefor are not motivated to change. Maybe this is the root of the problem?

History tells us however, that giants can be defeated by the “little guy”.

Tag: online

Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Law

tradition