Paul Hastings Launches AI Practice As Clients Face Uncertain Risks
As clients are eager for guidance on how to best implement AI into their business, evaluating the potential risk involved may be harder than ever.
March 27, 2019 at 07:00 AM
3 minute read
Showbiz wisdom dictates that you give the people what they want, and apparently there's some crossover appeal to the practice of law as well. On Monday, the law firm Paul Hastings launched a new practice group devoted specifically to issues surrounding artificial intelligence (AI).
According to the group's co-chair, Robert Silvers, the practice was formed in response to popular demand from clients, many of whom are just beginning to dip a toe into the AI waters and want to make sure there are no sharks lurking nearby.
“What I think is going to evolve in the coming years really is the enforcement and the price to pay for getting these things wrong. I think there's just no question that we're at the dawn of an era of class action,” Silvers said.
Whenever that era arrives, the consequences have the potential to be felt across a variety of different industries and disciplines. Paul Hastings' clients hail from backgrounds that include fintech, privacy and cybersecurity.
Some are interested in deploying AI-based solutions that are capable of screening job candidates or evaluating the performance of employees who are up for promotions. If at all possible, they would very much like for their attorneys to help them do so without running afoul of discrimination or privacy laws. After all, algorithm formulas have been found to contain inherent biases in the past.
The trick for attorneys is navigating the ill-defined legal space surrounding AI, which like most new technologies is growing faster than the law.
“It's not for the faint of heart. You need to be comfortable on unsettled ground. You need to have enough confidence to deliver crisp advice to the client, which means really understanding the issue areas from all angles,” Silvers said.
In the absence of much case law or precedent to fall back upon, Silvers framed the underlying challenge as something that sounds a lot like a game of “What If?” For example, what if a hiring decision involving the application of AI went to court? What is the full spectrum of possible outcomes and the risk associated with each?
“And then what [clients] really value is you can say, 'Here's what other companies are doing in the space and how they're approaching it,'” Silvers said.
To be sure, how companies approach AI is subject to change, especially if the consequences for a misstep continue to grow steeper. Silvers believes that in addition to class action suits brought by consumers or employees who believe they were treated unfairly by the technology, businesses may also have to eventually contend with increased attention from regulators.
There are even provisions found in the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) geared towards limiting the extent to which a program can effect an impact without some kind of human oversight in place.
“I think that's going to be the next ticket as the technology starts being more widely adopted. More people are going to start feeling consequences,” Silvers said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
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