by Adam Manning
The acceleration in computing power is unrelentingly accelerating and recent striking examples of artificial intelligence in action have revealed to many the new possibilities that are opening before us. What implications are there for the law and lawyers, and especially the role that law plays in society? These were the focus of a fascinating round table discussion by Richard Susskind, President of the Society for Computers and Law, and Mark Cohen, Executive Chairman of Digital Legal Exchange, moderated by Anusia Gillespie of UnitedLex.
In considering the future of legal services, a key question is, what is the role of law in society? It cannot be just for the benefit of lawyers! Impressively for such a forward-looking arena of thought, mention was made of the jurisprudence of ancient Rome and Mesopotamia, and Mark concluded that law is for societal cohesion, that is the regular and easy functioning of the community. Richard put it in terms of justice, but then wondered how justice applied, for example, in the context of corporate law. One answer might be that, as an example, drawing up and executing a substantial commercial agreement is an exercise in “anticipatory justice”, in the sense of the parties seeking to clarify their relationship and spell out what they expect of each other, in the knowledge that the law will provide remedies if it is breached. Corporate law is justice in a sophisticated, preventative mode, to avoid injustice (that is the breach of contract or law) ever occurring. In this sense, justice and the cohesion of society are not dissimilar.
Yet we live in, the speakers suggested, an age when access to justice is becoming more restricted for so many. Most people, Richard told us, cannot afford access to lawyers and the Courts. How can there be the much-touted rule of law, one of the founding concepts of a modern, democratic society, if in practice many of its citizens cannot easily and effectively have recourse to the Courts or legal advice?
On this point, Mark called for a more customer-centric functioning of legal systems as a way of reversing such a trend. Richard picked the point up by suggesting it was a question of legal design thinking. Legal systems, including the Courts, must meet the needs of legal users. In my jurisdiction, the legal system has gone through rapid change in recent decades, sweeping away much of the historical legacy of previous centuries. One pertinent example is the rationalisation and clearing up of many of the Court forms needed for legal proceedings.
The 21st Century has seen an ongoing shift to interfacing with the Court system in England and Wales via electronic means, with an online Court system replacing a paper based one. A key theme in legal adaptation must be considering the possibility of entirely or substantially redesigning legal systems, including the Courts, as a result. Simply paralleling an online Court system on the previous paper-based system is not always going to result in an efficient or easy to understand process for the Court user. Ultimately such profound reform may lead to redrafting the rules of Court and even the law itself. An online Court system, aimed at maximising access to justice for all citizens, could be very different from what we have at present. I know that many people at present find the Court’s implantation of an online system to be difficult and opaque.
When the Courts and the legal system are primarily an online arena, the legal profession must change as well. The great volumes of data required and the enormous advances in artificial intelligence, and our exposure to it, play a role here. As a striking example of what might happen, mention was made of ChatGPT, a recently launched chatbot designed to mimic a human conversationalist. Using ChatGPT, it becomes clear very quickly that it can do so much more than mimic conversation. My first forays were just for fun, and I asked it to rewrite Lord Byron’s poem “She Walks in Beauty” as if the subject were someone walking in the daylight instead of night. Within twenty seconds ChatGPT had done just that, in modern, clear English with an interesting rhyming structure. I was astonished.
A further humorous suggestion was to write Hamlet’s famous soliloquy in the style of one of Ronnie Corbett’s monologues. Again, within thirty seconds it had done just that, and rather delightfully spun the Bard’s timeless portrayal of existential angst in a laughably stereotypical British manner, suggesting the answer was a good cup of tea and putting your feet up for a bit. “I'm sure everything will look better in the morning.”
ChatGPT has been a phenomenon as it such a striking example of the new power of artificial intelligence to manipulate words and language. Perhaps somewhat overlooked in comparison to its creative power is the way it is used, which if anything is even more astonishing. To ask it to create these works, the user writes in perfectly normal English. No special training is needed, no understanding of programming a computer is required. “Please rewrite Hamlet's famous soliloquy that begins To be or not to be in the style of a Ronnie Corbett funny story”, and the magic happens.
As amusing as such examples are, to the lawyer there is an immediate analogy with drafting legal documents. Take a precedent and apply new data to it. A ChatGPT of the, perhaps not so far, future could have access to all appropriate statutes, statutory instruments, common law precedents, the whole body of law of the jurisdiction, along with a bank of precedents for legal correspondence, contracts, and Court documents, all for a particular area of law. All you might need to do is ask it, in normal English, to accomplish a task for you and it would draft the document. “Draft the appropriate Court proceedings needed to apply for an order for possession against my client’s commercial tenants currently occupying its premises in Oxford” might be one example. Another might be, “draw up a contract for the supply of my client’s latest range of scientific equipment to the Ministry of Defence’s research establishment.” This doesn’t seem hugely far-fetched for a system that can already creatively combine Shakespeare and Corbett.
To make such powerful lawtech a reality, a great deal of data will be required, and Richard suggested that lawyers of the future will be orientated towards that aspect of the profession, rather than simply knowing how the law and Courts work. To be able to draft such documents or advise on a case, an AI legal system will need data, and so the role of legal data scientists will be important. The professions will have to change and the haunting question of wether the profession of Solicitors will still exist in 2070 hung in the air at one point. Instead of doing the drafting and advising themselves, Richard suggested that lawyers of the future will licence their legal systems to clients for them to use.
Surveying the legal profession of 2023, rather than roughly fifty years in the future, suggests that even law firms that are seeking to embrace these profound changes are only at the foothills. Widescale, innovative disruption will have to take place rather than the more incremental process improvement that is taking place. We’re still firmly stuck in the first generation of change, a mostly marketing exercise, rather than the more profound revolution of the second generation that Richard described. I couldn’t help imagining Richard setting up his own law firm based on the principles of his second generation, but then it isn’t necessarily the case that the traditional law firm is going to be the source of such substantial change. “The competition that kills you doesn’t look like you”, we were left with. Richard also suggested lawyers and clients could liaise in virtual reality, although he studiously avoided using the M word.
Every other profession must deal with constant change, and it is odd that we as lawyers often think, hope, or pretend that it might be otherwise for us. It had been a rewarding discussion, and I am looking forward to reading Richard Susskind’s book, “Tomorrow’s Lawyers”.
No comments:
Post a Comment