Last week, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a letter on the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on the legal community. Sentiments expressed in the letter echo Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks detailed in the 2023 year-end report published by the federal judiciary. State and federal courts have weighed in on AI as the law races to catch up to this rapidly growing technology. Courts have opined that technology will revolutionize the practice of law while maintaining that the current ethical and professional rules that govern the bench remain robust enough to incorporate the developing technology. Let’s get into the details.
Background
The year 2024 will bring even more advancements in AI technology, and judges from both federal and state judiciaries have weighed in on what the development and integration of this technology mean for the legal industry. Previous blog posts have focused on what the progression of AI means for the executive and legislative branches of government and how state bar associations are issuing guidelines, to direct practitioners on its proper use in legal practice.
Courts and judges have also weighed in on this debate, predicting how this technology will transform law practice –and how the court system will evolve to benefit from AI –and understand its practical limits. The overarching themes expressed by the courts seem to indicate that though the legal profession is slow to adopt new technology –tech innovations have always influenced the day-to-day practice of law –and the creation of AI will be no different.
Federal Judiciary: Year-End Report from Chief Justice Roberts
In the Supreme Court’s 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts details how technology has always influenced how the judiciary operates and predicts that the development of AI will once again modernize the courts. He’s quick to note that “the legal profession is, in general, notoriously adverse to change” and that we have arrived at “the latest technological frontier: artificial intelligence.” In his report, Chief Justice Roberts points out ways in which AI will benefit the legal community –from increasing access to critical legal research to providing accessible tools that streamline legal practice, “including where to find templates, and court forms, how to fill them out, and where to bring them for presentation to the judge –all without leaving home.” The report highlights how AI tools can potentially balance the “mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system.”
Chief Justice Roberts also highlights the need for caution and humility while using AI and the apparent risks that come along with the technology –such as invasion of privacy, exposure of confidential client information, and dehumanizing the law. Concerns about due process, reliability, and potential bias, the Chief Justice writes, are at the forefront of debate among legal scholars who are worried AI tools could compromise the practice of law if not used appropriately.
The year-end report emphasizes that “legal determinations often involve gray areas that still require application of human judgment” and “machines cannot fully replace key actors in court.” Roberts points out that though AI tools will assist with the practice of law and potentially increase access to justice, it’s still important to note that the law requires nuanced thinking, and “most people still trust humans more than machines to perceive and draw the right inferences,” –especially in the field of law.
He highlights that most court appellate decisions “turn on whether a lower court has abused its discretion, a standard that by its nature involves fact-specific gray areas,” and other areas of the law focus on “open questions about how the law should develop in new areas.” This is where AI is limited as “it is based largely on existing information, which can inform but not make such decisions.”
Roberts predicts that “judicial work –particularly at the trial level –will be significantly affected by AI” and that those changes “will involve not only how judges go about doing their job, but also how they understand the role that AI plays in the cases that come before the Court.” He concludes that the judicial branch is composed of more than just judges and that AI will impact professionals at all levels involved in the practice of law. This sentiment is echoed in a letter from the Louisiana Supreme Court sent last week to the state’s bar association over the challenges and opportunities AI presents to legal practitioners.
State Judiciary: LA Supreme Court Letter to Bar Association
Last week, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a letter to the Louisiana State Bar Association president on the emergence of artificial intelligence. The letter, written by General Counsel David Becker on behalf of the Justices, echoes the opinions of Chief Justice Roberts regarding the potential and risks of AI.
The letter proposes that though applications of AI technology in the legal profession are new, “the rules governing the bench and the Bar are not new and have been in place for decades,” arguing that these rules are broad enough to cover the new “landscape of issues presented by AI in its current forms.” Reminding attorneys that regardless of AI, Louisiana attorneys practicing law in that state have always been “responsible for their work-product and the pleadings they file in court, maintaining competence in technology, and protecting confidential client information.”
The Court argues that attorney “obligations remain unchanged or unaffected regardless of the availability of AI” and that “judges have always been ultimately responsible for their opinions and decisions.” The letter concludes by asking the State Bar leadership to “stay attuned to any developing issues associated with the emergence of AI technology in the legal profession,” highlighting the mindset of many in the legal industry who are both welcoming and weary of its potential.
AI Debate: Human Judgment Versus Machine Learning
The remarks of both Chief Justice Roberts and the Louisiana Supreme Court reflect opinions held by many of those in the legal field: that AI provides many potential benefits to our court system and, if used correctly, can better our justice system. However, both documents illustrate that attorneys, judges, and legal professionals are ultimately still responsible for maintaining professional competence in judicial administration and the practice of law.
Like any new emerging technology, the law will have to play catch-up to ensure that advancements in AI improve the legal industry –promoting access to information and justice –without impeding on people’s privacy and rights. When used correctly, AI can expedite the practice of law –allowing for greater access and transparency. Both letters signify that lawyers and judges must remain mindful that artificial intelligence is a tool to help with legal practice –not replace humans responsible for upholding their legal and ethical duties.
Interested in Incorporating AI Into Your Workflow?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented US state trial court system searchable through a single interface, and we provide practitioners with analytical insights on judges, cases, and opposing counsel so that they can make actionable decisions in Court. Save time on legal research and writing by tracking lawsuits throughout various states and staying updated with documents from ongoing litigation. Request a demo today and experience the ease of our analytics and API, providing you with the tools needed to streamline your legal practice
Sources:
https://www.lsba.org/NewsArticle.aspx?Article=12b5093a-13ba-407c-b7d9-30057c968c5a
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ai-judges-chief-justice-roberts-thinks-not-ai-washington-report
Music: Disruptor’s Dance by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason