Tomorrow's Artificially Intelligent Lawyer Getting Closer Each Day
Among the many people making that prediction, Richard Susskind put it best in "Tomorrow's Lawyers" by observing that “we are at the beginning of a period of fundamental transformation in law: a time in which we will see greater change than we have seen in the past two centuries.
May 15, 2019 at 01:02 PM
6 minute read
In the book “We Are Not Alone,” published in 1964 and written by Walter Sullivan, the author included a chapter that asked “Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?” While that question could generate a lively debate, there can be no doubt that humans are in the process of developing artificial intelligence on earth. The term “artificial intelligence” was first coined by computer scientist John McCarthy in 1956 and is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a “branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers.” Popularly referred to as AI, there is no doubt that artificial intelligence will be a disruptive factor in the legal profession in the coming years.
Among the many people making that prediction, Richard Susskind put it best in “Tomorrow's Lawyers” by observing that “we are at the beginning of a period of fundamental transformation in law: A time in which we will see greater change than we have seen in the past two centuries. Where the future of the legal service will be a world of internet-based global businesses, online document production, commoditized service, legal process outsourcing and web-based simulation practice. Legal markets will be liberalized, with new jobs for lawyers and new employers, too.” This transformation will be fueled by the implementation of artificial intelligence.
Skeptics, of course, will doubt that AI will have a dramatic effect on the legal profession. These are the same people who resisted the conversion from electric typewriters to word processors, and who failed to believe that law books and law libraries would be replaced by electronic legal research. The pace of change is accelerating, however, and the noted futurist and a director of engineering at Google focusing on machine learning, Ray Kurzweil, predicts that computers will have human-level intelligence by 2029 and that a “singularity” will occur by 2045 when machines will become smarter than human beings.
There are a number of activities in the legal profession that currently benefit from AI, including automated document assembly, search algorithms that drive legal research databases, voice recognition and e-discovery software. Predictive coding, which is basically a search algorithm that learns how to rank the relevance of documents, continues to improve and reduces the time it takes to search huge electronic databases. At J.P. Morgan Chase, an AI-powered program called COIN has been used since June 2017 to interpret commercial loan agreements. Work that previously took thousands of hours can now be done in seconds. The drafting of contracts can be accomplished more efficiently when variable clauses are selected and properly included, and missing clauses are caught before it is too late. Analytics, not the exclusive domain of professional sports teams, are now found in programs developed for the purpose of gaining more data about prospective jurors, such as detailed social media profiles, that give attorneys more of a sense of how particular jurors may act if selected.
There are many companies that are developing applications for artificial intelligence. The most notable of these is IBM, which has developed the supercomputer known as “Watson,” named for IBM's founder, Thomas J. Watson. In reality, Watson (a winner on the television show “Jeopardy”) combines artificial intelligence and sophisticated analytical software for optimal performance as a “question-answering” machine. It is a cognitive system that learns over time and, based on its knowledge of a number of factors in similar matters, is expected to be able to make predictions about the outcome of a case. It has already been very successfully applied to medical diagnostics.
One of the most progressive and exciting uses of Watson in the practice of law has been undertaken by Ross Intelligence. As reported in the Lawyerist, Ross Intelligence is an online legal research tool that harnesses the power of artificial intelligence to make legal research more insightful. It offers a platform optimized for natural language searches, which tends to provide search results that better address the lawyer's intent and the context of the query, leading to more efficient legal research. A free offering of Ross Intelligence, known as EVA, analyzes briefs, checks sites and finds similar cases. EVA will also check the subsequent history of a case to make sure that it is still good law. There are similar products, as well, like Casetext's CARA, which was selected as the product of the year in 2017 by the American Association of Law Libraries. A review of the websites of these companies will provide a great deal of information about the expanding capabilities of their products.
Although large law firms and in-house corporate counsel are learning about AI products, most attorneys are unaware of what is happening. An American Bar Association survey found that only 10% of respondents reported that they used artificial intelligence-based technology tools. The number increased to 26% when the respondents included only attorneys from law firms with more than 100 attorneys. As the tools improve, and attorneys learn about them, these percentages will increase. Those who fail or refuse to adapt will find themselves at a serious competitive disadvantage in the years ahead.
For those who are interested, it is worth looking into companies like LawGeex (contract review automation), Lex Machina (legal analytics), and Ravel (a suite of tools and services designed to help professionals analyze, visualize and understand the law). These products are not designed to replace lawyers, but they are intended to reduce research and organization time so that the attorney can focus on case analysis and development of case strategy. Computers are not yet capable of dealing with multiple parties and developing creative arguments, but that will undoubtedly change in the future. Who knows, the role of the attorney may be completely replaced by a computer one day.
Michael H. Payne is chair of the government contracting group at Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman. Contact him at [email protected].
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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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