AI and Attorney Obligations Are Still Outpacing the Law
Legalweek's "Tempering Innovation: The Riskier Side of Digital Transformation" panel explored many of the lingering questions still surrounding AI and the implications for counsel.
February 04, 2020 at 05:21 PM
3 minute read
Less five minutes into Tuesday's "Tempering Innovation: The Riskier Side of Digital Transformation" session at Legalweek New York, panelists made an attempt to rechristen the whole affair to something more along the lines of "Managing the Risk Associated with Innovation." The implication is that new technologies don't have to be tamped down so much as handled with care.
Of course, when it comes to artificial intelligence, there are precious few instructions to draw from in that pursuit. Lee Tiedrich, a partner and co-chair of the Global Artificial Intelligence Initiative at Covington & Burling, indicated that much like the internet in the 1990s, the growth of technologies such as AI continues to outstrip the development of the law. The lack of absolute regulatory clarity raises the stakes for organizations.
"You need to be very careful as you go forward with AI because even if there's no legal risk, bad headlines can result in bad reputational harm for companies," Tiedrich said.
Ron Peppe, vice president of legal and human resources at Canam Steel Corp., could speak to some of those challenges directly. For example, Peppe said that tech companies are frequently attempting to pitch him on AI solutions related to the hiring, training and even termination of employees. As much as companies may be looking to streamline or expedite certain processes within their organization, even these tools aren't an easy sell.
As in most business practices these days, privacy concerns abound. Peppe indicated that some of these hiring solutions are able to scrape a candidate's social media accounts for data, but there's some information that recruiters aren't permitted to ask for that could potentially get swept up in the search, such as someone's religion.
"When you do stuff like that you tend to learn a lot of stuff about people you're not supposed to know," Peppe said.
Many of those issues inevitably lead into questions around bias, a problem that in the AI world expands well beyond the human resources sphere. Tiedrich referenced State v. Loomis, a case out of the Wisconsin Supreme Court where the defendant claimed that the use of an algorithmic risk assessment tool violated his due process. The court eventually upheld the decision since the judge also relied on additional factors other than the assessment.
Still, the question of AI bias persists. "How can we humans use [AI] in connection with the other types of functions that we use?" Tiedrich asked.
AI's imperfections can be even trickier to navigate for lawyers. David Kessler, public sector counsel for Verizon, spoke to the ethical obligations that attorneys have to consider when AI is brought into their organization, including how to best obtain permission to use a data subject's information.
"You have an obligation to put in proper safeguards for whatever technology you adopt," Kessler 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
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