At ILTA, IBM Posits AI Is Necessity for Future Business of Law
IBM Watson Legal leaders put AI into context and discussed how it is being used in the legal industry.Artificial intelligence is exciting, but much…
August 16, 2017 at 09:55 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
IBM Watson Legal leaders put AI into context and discussed how it is being used in the legal industry.
Artificial intelligence is exciting, but much confusion remains about what it actually is and is not. In the case of law, this misunderstanding is exacerbated by hyperbolic headlines suggesting the end of lawyers. This, says IBM Watson Legal global leader Brian Kuhn, isn't really helping anybody.
Kuhn and Shawnna Hoffman, global cognitive legal co-leader at IBM, delivered the Tuesday keynote at the International Legal Technology Association's 2017 ILTACON conference. In their session, the two discussed how AI actually works in the business of law, and estimated that AI will likely become the norm sooner than we think.
Hoffman said to consider that “88 percent of data is invisible to us.” This is because society is producing mass amounts of unstructured data, and those amounts are increasing at unprecedented rates. In the past two years, for instance, more information was created than had previously been for all of time. In 10 years, the amount of data in existence will double every 12 hours.
“We're on the verge of a world where everything we interact with will produce data,” Hoffman said.
Processing such data is where AI comes in. Considering the confusion about what AI means practically, Hoffman said that rather than debate between whether AI refers to neural networks, deep learning or a subfield of the sort, it can be considered “an umbrella term”.
AI “has no agreed-upon definition. Just like human intelligence, AI has a number of capabilities,” she noted. And while AI's ability differs between vendors and the quality of their technology, at its core, it can process data with “human-like knowledge.”
Kuhn said that for lawyers, this has tremendous implications, noting that technologies relying on cognitive computing can “read 800 million pages per second and put forward hypotheses and show their homework, if you will.”
“In learning, these tools become organic extensions of your practice,” he said, noting that for law firms, cognitive computing can be leveraged to learn the particular needs of the firm, its employees and its clients. “This is actually a fairly radical and a complete departure of the 'one size fits all' point solutions of the past. Context and AI go hand in hand.”
Kuhn noted that in the case of IBM, whose Watson technology has become widely known for its application of cognitive computing to professions such as medicine and law, the company is pushing to enable the business user (such as a lawyer) to be the end user.
In his estimation, the future of AI will be the ability to compile information and use it to provide insights. “We're on the cusp of a new social renaissance, and I don't think that's hyperbole. We're now just emerging from the Wild West days of artificial intelligence,” he added.
Hoffman and Kuhn both focus solely on the business of law, each underscoring that they don't apply AI to the practice of law.
“Our clients are the ones that actually chose the business of law over the practice of law over and over again,” Hoffman said, noting that the technology is used by firms for finding key performance indicators, determining return on investment, and finding business value.
In deciding how to apply IBM's technology for a firm, Kuhn discussed how he and Hoffman would hold workshops where they'd ask law firm employees to identify their client, business and employee pain points; the business value realizable of applying cognitive technology to a legal use case; and whether the content that could fuel the technology to find an answer to an issue has been identified.
Kuhn discussed what he thought the next stage iterations of AI would be as well. He pointed to “cartridges” currently being designed by IBM that can be trained to “think and reason like their trainers.” In other words, “not just knowing what they think but how they think.”
For law firms, he said that these will allow for new revenue streams, as they can essentially train a piece of technology to think like an attorney. This could help with efforts like access to justice, which is currently limited by costs and business structures.
“It's too expensive to scale access to justice. At this point it's a technology problem,” he said. “This is another area where AI could have a positive impact.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250