‘Silly examples’ of bad practice, such as court filings with hallucinated case authorities should not put lawyers off embracing artificial intelligence, the master of the rolls said today.
In his latest speech urging the profession to learn about - and utilise - so-called generative AI, Sir Geoffrey Vos called for the building of bridges between AI enthusiasts and AI sceptics. In the latter category, he placed people who cite incidents such as the widely reported use of fictitious case references by a New York lawyer. However ’We should not be using silly examples of bad practice as a reason to shun the entirety of a new technology,’ he told an event organised by the Ministry of Justice-backed LawtechUK programme.
On the contrary, Vos said, ’there is no real reason why we should not embrace AI’ albeit ’cautiously and responsibly’.
He cited three reasons why this is inevitable.
First all the business and consumer sectors which the legal sector serves will be using AI themselves. ’There is simply no way that lawyers can set themselves apart and say that GenAI is too dangerous or the work of lawyers is too precise to use it.’
Secondly, one of the biggest fields of legal activity in years to come is likely to be the claims that will be brought over the negligent or inappropriate use of AI - and also over the negligent or inappropriate failure to use AI. ’If lawyers are not adept at the understanding the capabilities and weaknesses of generative AI, they will not be able to advise their clients properly about the issues that will undoubtedly arise from its applications.’
The third reason why lawyers and judges must embrace generative AI, is that it will save time and money and allow advice to be given and disputes to be resolved far more quickly and efficiently.
The master of the rolls revealed that an expert group he chairs, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce is preparing a legal statement on legal questions raised by AI. It will include questions such as: ’In what circumstances, and on what legal basis, will English common law impose liability for physical and economic loss caused by the use of AI?’
1 Reader's comment