{"id":208259,"date":"2023-06-20T08:16:27","date_gmt":"2023-06-20T08:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=208259"},"modified":"2024-08-10T08:54:16","modified_gmt":"2024-08-10T08:54:16","slug":"mr-regulators-and-courts-need-to-control-use-of-chatgpt-in-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/mr-regulators-and-courts-need-to-control-use-of-chatgpt-in-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Regulators and courts need to control use of ChatGPT in litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Legal regulators and the courts may need to control \u201cwhether and in what circumstances and for what purposes\u201d lawyers can use artificial intelligence (AI) systems like ChatGPT in litigation, the Master of the Rolls has said.<\/p>\n

Sir Geoffrey Vos said there would need to be mechanisms to deal with the use of generative AI within the legal system.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe may even hopefully turn it to the advantage of access to justice and effective and economical legal advice and dispute resolution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Addressing<\/a> the Law Society of Scotland\u2019s Law and Technology conference last week, Sir Geoffrey highlighted the recent case<\/a> of New York lawyer Steven Schwartz, who used ChatGPT to prepare his submissions in a personal injury case.<\/p>\n

Six of the cases cited were, in the words of the judge, \u201cbogus decisions with bogus quotes and bogus citations\u201d. This was despite Mr Schwartz asking the system to confirm their accuracy.<\/p>\n

\u201cMr Schwartz was not uncovered because of the language of his brief, but because the judge in that case took the trouble to look up the cases cited. No doubt that does not always happen,\u201d said the MR.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe risks of litigants in person using ChatGPT to create plausible submissions must be even more palpable. And indeed such an event was reported as having happened in Manchester only a few days ago.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case showed lawyers could not use generative AI to cut corners. \u201cI suspect that non-specialised AI tools will not help professional lawyers as much as they may think, though I have no doubt that specialised legal AIs will be a different story.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said Spellbook was already claiming to have adapted \u201cGPT-4 to review and suggest language for your contracts and legal documents\u201d.<\/p>\n

The judge quoted an article<\/a> by City litigation firm Enyo Law that asked ChatGPT to identify its own most valuable uses in dispute resolution \u2013 it said they were to assist lawyers with drafting, document review, predicting case outcomes to inform strategy, and settlement negotiations.<\/p>\n

\u201cClients are unlikely to pay for things they can get for free,\u201d said Sir Geoffrey, echoing comments he made<\/a> in April. \u201cMr Schwartz would have done well to read Enyo Law\u2019s article, which emphasises that the large language model is there to \u2018assist\u2019 the lawyers and needs to be carefully checked.<\/p>\n

\u201cNonetheless, if briefs can be written by ChatGPT and Spellbook, checked by lawyers, clients will presumably apply pressure for that to happen if it is cheaper, and saves some of an expensive fee-earners\u2019 time.\u201d<\/p>\n

In litigation at least, Sir Geoffrey went on, \u201cthe limiting factor may be the court or tribunal adjudicating on the dispute\u201d.<\/p>\n

He said: \u201cOne can envisage a rule or a professional code of conduct regulating whether and in what circumstances and for what purposes lawyers can: (i) use large language models to assist in their preparation of court documents, and (b) be properly held responsible for their use in such circumstances.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose will be things that the existing rules committees, regulators, and the new Online Procedure Rules Committee\u2026 will need to be considering as a matter of urgency.<\/p>\n

The MR added that the way ChatGPT answered Mr Schwartz\u2019s questions to confirm the cases it cited indicated two issues: that ChatGPT and AIs more generally \u201cneed to be programmed to understand the full import of a human question\u201d, and humans using them \u201cneed to be savvier in checking their facts\u201d.<\/p>\n

This meant both asking more precise questions and programmers explaining to \u201cthe AIs they are creating what humans mean when they ask something as open textured as \u2018is this a real case\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n

He said: \u201cThis requires careful and detailed programming beyond what might be required in other fields of activity\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cIf GPT-4 (and its subsequent iterations) is going to realise its full potential for lawyers\u2026 it is going to have to be trained to understand the principles upon which lawyers, courts and judges operate.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs Mr Schwartz found to his cost, the present version of ChatGPT does not have a sufficiently reliable moral compass. In the meantime, court rules may have to fill the gap.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n