By: Andrew Ciulla
In a historic first, an AI-powered robot lawyer will appear as defense counsel in a U.S. courtroom in February. However, for those skeptical or maybe even nervous about the development, rest assured that the case is nothing close to a murder defense or some serious criminal charge. Instead, the robot lawyer will only be assisting in fighting against a mere traffic ticket. Nonetheless, AI in the courtroom is following the growing trend towards using technology in preparing and carrying out lawyers’ responsibilities. In the Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S. survey, 79% of legal professional respondents agree that legal technology is increasingly important. However, only 36% of respondents believed their organizations were prepared to keep up with the evolving industry.
The company heading the charge for the AI-powered attorney is called DoNotPay. As the name suggests, the company’s goal is to “level the playing field and make legal information and self-help accessible to everyone.” Joshua Browder, the CEO of DoNotPay, is attempting to bridge the gap between access to legal resources that have been historically unavailable. According to the Legal Service Corporation, low-income Americans seeking legal aid did not receive any or enough legal assistance approximately 63%-70% of the time. Additionally, according to the Boston Bar Association, legal aid programs turned away 64% of eligible cases in which 33,000 low-income residents were denied a lawyer’s aid in eviction, foreclosure, and family law cases such as domestic violence and child abuse.
Browder goes as far as to state that he wishes to replace some lawyers altogether to save defendants money. Browder assures everyone that the law profession will not be entirely replaced. Instead, DoNotPay focuses on replacing lawyers who charge excessive fees for simply copying and pasting documents. However, Browder’s assurance has not stopped him from boldly attempting to replace lawyers. In a tweet, Browder offers a million dollars for any lawyer or person that would repeat what the robot lawyer whispers in their ear using AirPods in front of the United States Supreme Court. The process is not entirely legal, as only some courts allow defendants to wear hearing aids that are Bluetooth enabled. Therefore, Browder declining to disclose the name of the defendant or which courtroom it will be argued in is a tactful decision.
The software behind the AI-powered lawyer is Gpt-3 and ChatGPT. ChatGPT has made recent news as a conversational AI that can instantaneously answer questions pulling from vast volumes of information online. Curiosity drove me to pick the brain of the AI on a simple legal problem: whether a Massachusetts court would have jurisdiction over me in a theoretical matter. The answer I received was a thorough analysis with the typical legal response: “It depends.” (For those interested in trying out the chat click here). Although very impressive, the system is not perfect. In response, DoNotPay has agreed to cover the fines if they lose the case.
Still, the introduction of AI in the courtroom raises some ethical concerns. One such concern is lawyers’ duties of client confidentiality and privilege. Professionals caution against hosted data used in AI applications and the risk of data breaches. However, keeping data safe in a virtual world is not new. Some measures could ensure that legal innovation is secure. Methods include, but are not limited to, multifactor authentication logins and ensuring any third-party vendor does not intermingle data. Furthermore, perhaphs the most fascinating part of AI, machine learning, raises concerns of confidentiality. Machine learning is for an AI to make predictions without being explicitly programmed to do so. The ideal result is for the AI to determine the best legal response to any legal question. For AI to be successful, we must feed it relevant data, meaning previous cases with their results and participants, which closely parallel the current legal question. As a result, confidential information would be exploited for a smarter and more accurate AI.
Ultimately, lawyers will not be replaced by AI robots except in situations where the legal field has already started to automate the process. Automation is not an entirely robotic process. Lawyers who are applying automation in their practice work in combination with AI. Per the Rules of Professional Conduct, these innovative lawyers are “maintain[ing] the requisite knowledge and skill, . . . keep[ing] abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” AI is, without a doubt, a relevant technology. Following the advice of the Model Rules, a lawyer should take the necessary precaution to protect against the risks of any breaches of confidentiality. As time progresses, AI will likely replace some tedious tasks of the lawyer, but the professional’s independent judgment will always supersede. So, for now, take a breath and relax as we remain far from any iRobot type of world event.
Student Bio: Andrew Ciulla is a 2L at Suffolk University Law School. He is a staff writer on the Journal of High Technology Law. Andrew received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in International Studies, with concentrations in Ethics and Social Justice, from Boston College.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
