April 25 (Reuters) – The emergence of ChatGPT, the fastest-growing consumer application in history, has sparked enthusiasm and concern about the potential of artificial intelligence to transform the legal system.
From chatbots that interact with clients, to tools that help with legal research, document management, and even the creation of legal summaries, AI has been touted as having the potential to increase efficiency in the legal industry. It is also recognized for its ability to help bridge access to justice gaps by making legal assistance and services more widely available to marginalized groups.
According to Legal Services Corp, most low-income U.S. households deal with at least one civil litigation issue a year over issues such as housing, health care, child custody, and protection from abuse. 92% of these households have no legal assistance. problem.
Moreover, the underfunded criminal defense system has been dysfunctional for decades.
AI and similar technologies hold promise in their ability to democratize legal services, including applications such as online dispute resolution and automated document creation.
For example, A2J Author uses a simplified kind of AI, Decision Trees, to build document preparation tools for complex applications such as Housing Law, Public Interest Law. Non-profit organization JustFix provides online tools to help with a variety of issues between landlords and tenants. Apps are also being developed to help kill criminals, prepare for unemployment hearings, and even get divorced.
Still, there are reasons to be cautious rather than optimistic about the potential impact of AI on access to justice.
According to legal industry analysts and experts at the intersection of law and technology, much of the industry’s existing technology and momentum is not directed to the interests of the underserved. Some warn that despite the potential of this technology, the current trajectory actually risks exacerbating existing disparities.
Rashida Richardson, an assistant professor at Northeastern University School of Law, told me that AI has “a lot of potential,” and there has been ample public debate about “the many limitations of AI and the data itself.” I emphasized that no She has served as a technical advisor to the White House and the Federal Trade Commission.
“Fundamentally, the issue of access to justice is not about access to technology, but about deeper structural inequalities,” Richardson said.
It is important to recognize that the development of AI technology is overwhelmingly unregulated and driven by market forces that steadfastly favor powerful and wealthy actors. After all, tech companies aren’t building AI for free, they’re interested in creating compelling products for those who can afford to pay.
“Your ability to reap the benefits of new technology is directly related to your ability to access that technology,” said Jordan Furlong, a legal industry analyst and consultant. points out to be $20 a month.
Generative AI is driving a new technology gold rush in “big laws” and other industries, and these projects can cost millions of dollars, Reuters reported April 4. I was.
Leading law firms and legal service providers are integrating AI search tools into their workflows, and some are partnering with technology companies to develop applications in-house.
Global law firm Allen & Overy announced in February that its lawyers are using chatbot-based AI technology from a startup called Harvey to automate legal document drafting and investigations, for example. Did. Harvey last year received a $5 million investment in a funding round, Reuters reported in February. Last month, PricewaterhouseCoopers announced that 4,000 legal professionals would also begin using generative AI tools.
Representatives for PricewaterhouseCoopers and Allen & Overy did not respond to requests for comment.
But legal aid organizations, public defenders, and civil rights attorneys serving minorities and low-income groups do not have the funding to develop or co-develop AI technology or contract for large-scale AI applications. .
According to William Henderson, a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School, the resource issue is reflected in the contours of the legal market itself, which are essentially two different sectors. law.
Americans will spend about $84 billion on legal services in 2021, according to Henderson’s survey and U.S. Census Bureau data. By contrast, businesses cost him $221 billion and he generates nearly 70% of the legal services industry’s revenue.
These disparities seem to be reflected in the development of legal AI so far.
A 2019 study of U.S. digital legal technology by Rebecca Sandefur, a sociologist at Arizona State University, identified more than 320 digital technologies that assist non-lawyers with legal challenges. But the Sandefur study also found that the application didn’t make much of a difference when it came to improving access to legal assistance for low-income people and minorities in her community. These groups were less likely to use tools due to fees, limited internet access, language or literacy barriers, and poor technical design.
Sandefur’s report identifies other hurdles to innovation, including coordination challenges among countless county, state, and federal court systems and a “strong monopoly in the provision of legal advice by legal professionals.” Did. Businesses engaged in the practice of law.
Professor Drew Simshaw of the Gonzaga University School of Law said many non-lawyers were “very motivated” to advance in the field, but were concerned about crossing the line into unlicensed legal practice. According to Simshaw, there is no uniform definition of what constitutes unauthorized practice across jurisdictions.
Overall, it is clear that AI has great potential to disrupt and improve access to justice. However, it is not so clear whether we have the infrastructure or the political will to make it happen.
Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect Reuters News’ commitment to integrity, independence and freedom from bias under its Trust Principles.
