AI in the Legal System: Friend or Foe?
Artificial Intelligence has been revolutionizing various industries, and the legal system is no exception. The integration of AI in the legal sector has shown promising potential to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and access to justice. However it has also been subject to controversy due to the intricacies involved. This blog post delves into the preliminary uses of AI in the legal system and in general will attempt to see where we are going. AI-Powered tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and its other competitors such as Google and Bing, have all become wide stream in its applied use throughout the world. Many individuals like myself have been using it as an assistant to gain better understanding of concepts, conceptualizing ideas, and gaining opinions of certain topics. Within the legal system, the use of Artificial Intelligence has been quite limited, but with a new found popularity of use in other practical applications, it makes sense that this field would be up next to try to incorporate it in some capacity. AI is not new and has been used by many paralegals and attorneys to assist their process.
Some practical applications would be:
Legal Research and Document Review:
Predictive Analytics
Contract Analysis
Legal Chatbots
Although the incorporation of AI in the legal system may be limited to just administrative tasks and even some research. There have been some recent controversial events that occurred in New York with the use of AI for case research. According to the BBC, a US Lawyer was referencing legal cases that did not exist. With this in mind even an attorney of thirty years of experience having to deal with a case of his own due to his actions of using AI for case research. Shows the importance of the importance of the end users actions whilst using the tool. ChatGPT informs users that it can "produce inaccurate information". But this is only one side of the problems that we are just now starting to see.
Some other several challenges and concerns persist:
Bias and Fairness
Lack of Human Judgment
Data Privacy and Security
Legal and Ethical Issues
Blatant false information
Potential Constitutional Violations of Use of Artificial Intelligence:
The incorporation of AI in the legal system has raised constitutional considerations, making it an evolving area of study. Various legal analyses have highlighted potential red flags related to constitutional amendments that might be necessary to address AI's impact on legal proceedings.
Due Process and Fairness
AI systems used for legal decision-making, such as predictive analytics in sentencing, must adhere to the principles of due process and fairness. The Constitution guarantees that individuals have a right to a fair trial and equal protection under the law. If AI algorithms produce biased or discriminatory outcomes, they may violate these constitutional rights.
Right to Privacy
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As AI systems require vast amounts of data for analysis, concerns about privacy and data protection may arise. Unauthorized collection or usage of personal information could be deemed unconstitutional.
Equal Protection Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from treating individuals differently based on certain characteristics (e.g., race, gender, religion). If AI algorithms exhibit biased decision-making, it may raise concerns about unequal treatment and potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause.
There are so many questions to be asked of AI’s practical use in the Legal System. From my own personal experience of utilizing AI for personal use, I can tell from the end user experience that there are many complications and ethical issues with the use of Artificial Intelligence in the justice system. Although we won’t see it used for the sole purpose of being judge, lawyer, jury, and even executioner in the near future. Its practical uses should and most likely will always stay as an asset and resource for legal administrative assistants and attorneys.
Sources:
