What do you see is the future of AI (artificial intelligence) in the legal field?

AI (artificial intelligence) is a hot topic right now and it will only continue to grow. The earliest uses I was aware of was in research and writing. The earliest writings that I was told about provided professional sounding writings. As individuals began to use computer generated writings for their school work it caused a very real issue for teachers. Following submission of a few writings in class, teachers were given an insight and familiarity with the style, grammatical correctness and sophistication of their individual students. When suddenly the product was dramatically improved on writing assignments done away from the classroom, the teachers had to take a bit more time in grading each paper more closely, using any tools available to identify papers not created by the student. Where teachers had to evaluate writings for plagiarism or a widely distributed work product of writers for hire, the evaluation now included the identification of artificial intelligence use. I have not been involved with anything such as that but can only imagine it is evaluation of in class verbiage, the use of a few AI detector programs from the literal dozens available and maybe the teacher’s generation of an AI writing using similar metrics as would have been used by a student to compare the results. Texas Tech for instance suggests dozens of programs for use but cautions a teacher at whatever level to not completely determine that a writing is AI generated based on the result of a single program.

I next became aware of its use for students in math. Let’s face it, parents go to school once for themselves and again with their kids. After the math methods have changed, maybe fifteen plus years after their education ended and once their children begin more difficult forms of math, the parents generally need help as well. Every child is a subsequent round of going to school again. Its good when they are in the lower grades and you can help but math often becomes a head scratcher along middle school. Enter AI. Admittedly I have used AI cautiously to help me understand a few of my son’s math problems. I know at least one parent that routinely uses AI as a means to check their child’s math problems both for homework and while studying for tests. I am more hesitant about that because I don’t know if AI necessarily shows the steps to the solution in the same manner as the teacher instructs the students.

Within the last couple of weeks of writing this article I have become aware via an app of the things that AI can do for photographs. My brother asked AI to convert a photograph of our dad and the three of us kids into a painting. It wasn’t as good as what a good professional portrait painter can do but it was very impressive. A friend showed me an old photo of his parents (now deceased) from their wedding in the immediate post World War II period. It was a nice vintage photo like so many that I may have seen. Suddenly the photo details improved significantly and I watched as his parents moved and embraced. Really incredible use of AI.

To the point of the question. My one-word answer for the use of AI in law is the word CAUTION. I have subscriptions to some treatises on one broad area of law and one very specific area of law. The subscription is available to me both in print and electronically. The print version includes a couple of print updates per year. The material is cut and dried. The electronic version is updated as updates are available. I can access it from different devices and it has AI availability. For reasons that I will detail later in this article I am cautious about its use. The redeeming fact is that any AI result pulls only from the company materials that I am subscribed to and nothing outside that. Not being a litigator, my research is more supported by transactional facts rather than case law as a litigator relies on. That to me gives me greater assurance in any AI generated results, but nevertheless a good lawyer must use caution and double check results.

About seven months after Chat GPT first became available, a couple of New Your lawyers and their firm were sanctioned and fined $5,000 for the results of their brief which included six fictitious cases generated by AI. These fictitious cases are referred to as “AI hallucinations”. This was after the Federal District Court and opposing counsel had questioned the authenticity of the cited case law. The sanction and fine was not for using Chat GPT but for using it without adequate oversight. A similar case occurred in a Texas appellate court a month later but the appellate court did not turn the attorney in to the Texas State Bar, stating generally that the issue had been addressed on appeal.

A Georgia divorce case was overturned after two AI generated cases that never existed were presented. The attorney was fined $2,500. In California two law firms were fined over $31,000 due to several mistakes made by using AI and a case involving My Pillow CEO, Mike Lindell in Colorado had more than 20 major mistakes.

Only a couple of months ago a Federal Judge declined to sanction a firm in Oregon after the firm made several remedial strides to mitigate errors while using AI. Even within Alabama the legal community has been affected negatively by AI over the last six months. A nationally known law firm erroneously submitted hallucinogenic cases while representing an Alabama governmental department and a lawyer in north Alabama and a lawyer in south Alabama were sanctioned for similar false results. A very interesting result has to do with a distinguished professor at Montgomery’s, Jones School of Law. The professor, who previously served as a judge on the Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was introduced at a tech conference in 2023 using an AI generated introduction. The professor reported that the introduction was fairly accurate….. until it stated that he died in 2018. The fact is he is very much alive.

AI has spread to other fields including medicine which broadens the possibility of AI liability. There are several theories under which a legal case could be supported against an AI program developer. A defense of inadequate input by a human may be countered by the limitations and representations of the product. AI has a lot of positive possibilities that are fun to think about, but without adequate human oversight things can go awry that can affect real lives. Again the one word, use with CAUTION.

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.