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
© 2025 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
- 1Pro Hac Vice in Georgia: Rule Change for Nonresident Attorneys
- 2The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
- 3AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 4A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 5‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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