Panel: Professional Conduct Rules Should Guide Ethics of AI Use
A panel of attorneys, both in-house and in private practice, said on Monday at the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting that the Rules of Professional Conduct are perhaps the best way to approach the use of AI.
October 22, 2018 at 06:33 PM
3 minute read
AUSTIN—While artificial intelligence (AI) is the hot topic in in-house legal departments in 2018, the ethics governing its use are not fully realized. A panel of attorneys, both in-house and in private practice, however, said on Monday that the rules of professional conduct are perhaps the best way to approach the use of AI.
Carolyn Metnick, a partner at Akerman LLP, who is co-chair of its privacy, cybersecurity and emerging technologies team based in Chicago, said that it may still be a couple of years before guidance is issued on artificial intelligence.
Metnick spoke at a panel on artificial intelligence at the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Austin at the Austin Convention Center.
“The bar associations have not put out much guidance on artificial intelligence,” she said.
The best way to guide yourself is to look to four Rules of Professional Conduct, Metnick said. Specifically, Rule 1.1, the duty of competence; Rule 1.4, the duty to communicate; Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality; and Rule 5.3, the duty to supervise, she said.
Aryeh Friedman, the associate general counsel and chief privacy officer of Dun & Bradstreet, agreed that the duty of competence is key. He said that having a legal department made up only of only lawyers can no longer be, and that technologists are necessary to help lawyers understand artificial intelligence so that those lawyers can explain the machine's findings.
Charles Neff, director of compliance at Huntington Ingalls Industries, a shipbuilding company, also said it is important to know the risks. Knowledge of those risks would fall under the duty of competence. The panel agreed.
“You need to be able to explain it to the client,” Metnick said.
Neff said among those risks that need to be explained are that bias is inherent in AI and machine-learning tools. He cautioned that those who use it must understand the necessity to filter certain results.
Metnick also explained that AI requires the duty of confidentiality. Often third-party vendors use AI and it is important to get the client's consent to allow those vendors to have access to confidential information, she said.
“If you're going to be working with an outside vendor, you should discuss privacy with that vendor and see what security measures are put in place,” Metnick said.
Finally, those using AI should also adhere to the duty to supervise.
“We have an obligation to supervise the work of lawyers and nonlawyers and to make sure we are all following the rules of professional conduct,” Metnick said.
The panel was moderated by Arlene Zalayet, the senior vice president and general attorney of Liberty Mutual Group.
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 2Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 3Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 4Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 5Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
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