The Use of AI for Legal Work Product
Artificial intelligence (AI) helps us gather, simplify, and understand information about complex subjects, such as the laws and legal system. For example, some rely on Google AI search results to provide excellent summaries of the law, mainly for educational purposes. Others rely on AI to:
- Write legal articles,
- Draft motions and briefs, and
- Polish letters to clients, judges, or opposing counsel.
In truth, AI tools can help save time. But AI is no substitute for an attorney. Before involving a third party platform — such as an AI web tool — consider information confidentiality. Is it safe to share confidential information with an AI tool? And, can you rely on AI’s legal work product? Before relying on AI’s work product, have a legal professional review it.
In this article, we take a look at how AI can help — and hurt — the practice of litigation.
Ways That AI Can Enhance Work Product
We all know that AI can help provide sample contracts, leases, and other forms used by transactional attorneys. But what about civil litigation, where procedural rules get amended and appellate courts can reverse precedent on a dime? Here, AI can sift through statute and legal precedent to find key “bottom line” conclusions in certain areas. One company called Paxton AI offers:
“… top-tier Legal Brief Writing Services, utilizing advanced artificial intelligence to ensure that every brief is meticulously crafted, persuasive, and compliant with all legal standards. Discover how Paxton AI can elevate the standard of your legal writing and help you achieve better results in court.”
What Are the Drawbacks of AI?
Artificial intelligence offers a valuable tool for crafting initial drafts of motions and briefs, streamlining the research process and organization of foundational facts and law. However, it’s crucial to remember that AI can make mistakes, especially in areas of law that are complex or nuanced.
Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence in legal writing carries practical risks, including:
- Oversimplification of facts or law, which may not meet the expectations of judges who require a thorough understanding of legal evolution.
- Use of excessive detail on issues that a particular judge may deem irrelevant, based on their expressed views in other cases.
- Failure to adapt to procedural changes, which can occur rapidly, especially with judicial retirements and the implementation of new rules by incoming judges. This potential for rapid change is one reason why Philadelphia firms often retain our Pittsburgh firm as local counsel in Western PA, as we possess up-to-date knowledge of local customs and the current judiciary, and
- Over-reliance or unde-reliance on “non-precedential opinions,” which some judges find more influential than others.
What Do State & County Bar Associations Think About AI?
Broadly, the opinion suggests that attorneys should be both aware of and competent in the use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession. It recommends that all AI-generated information, including legal citations, be verified for accuracy and truthfulness. The opinion also emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidentiality when using AI platforms.
What Do Judges Think?
In addition to the joint formal opinion, Pennsylvania courts have started to establish guidelines for using AI in the creation of court filings.
At the state level, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has created an advisory committee on artificial intelligence to propose statewide rules on artificial intelligence use in court filings.
In the federal courts, change is already underway. U.S. District Court Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a civil practice order on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the commonwealth. This order requires parties using AI in the preparation of any filing to include a certificate of use of generative AI, disclosing the specific AI tool used, identifying the AI-prepared portions of the filing, and certifying that the filing’s accuracy has been checked. Judge Mehalchick cautioned that non-compliance could result in sanctions.
Let’s Get Started!
Contact one of our living, breathing professionals, today!
412.342.0992
