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
© 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
- 1Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 2Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 3Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 4Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 5Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
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