A Lawyer Used ChatGPT to Support a Lawsuit. It Didn't Go Well.

A few months ago, a lawyer representing a client in a breach of contract case sought to bolster their argument with the help of an AI chatbot. They fed the bot with questions and answers to use in court as evidence. The chatbot, powered by OpenAI's GPT-3, was supposed to provide a convincing and comprehensive explanation of complex legal issues.

When the opposing counsel challenged the admissibility and reliability of the ChatGPT-generated transcripts, the judge was not impressed. The chatbot's output was qualitative and subjective, lacking a clear methodology or a solid foundation of case law and precedent. The court ruled against the admission of the chatbot's transcripts, and the lawyer's case lost much of its credibility.

This cautionary tale highlights the perils of relying solely on technology to make or break your arguments and cases. It also shows that AI chatbots, while powerful and promising, are not immune to misinterpretation, biases, and errors. In this article, we delve deeper into the lessons learned from this case, and explore how lawyers can use chatbots and AI tools more effectively and ethically.

The Dangers of Overreliance on Chatbots

One of the main pitfalls of using chatbots in legal cases is the assumption that they can replace or outperform human lawyers in terms of accuracy, relevance, and persuasion. Chatbots are not legal experts, and their output is only as good as the data and input they receive. They cannot assess the nuances of a case, analyze the credibility of a witness, or factor in the emotional impact of an argument. They also cannot detect or correct their own biases, which can lead to unfair or misleading outcomes.

Moreover, chatbots are subject to the same limitations and constraints as any other AI tool. They cannot reason outside their programmed logic, and they cannot adapt to new or unforeseen situations. They are also prone to errors and glitches, especially when trained on biased or incomplete datasets, or when exposed to adversarial attacks.

Thus, relying exclusively on chatbots can be dangerous and counterproductive in legal settings, where accuracy, fairness, and ethical conduct are paramount. Lawyers must recognize the limitations and potentials of chatbots, and use them as supplements, not substitutes, to their own expertise and judgement.

The Best Practices for Using Chatbots in Legal Settings

To avoid the pitfalls and capitalize on the potentials of chatbots, lawyers should follow some best practices and guidelines when deploying them in legal settings. Here are some examples:

• Use chatbots as research assistants, not decision-makers: Chatbots can help lawyers with legal research, document analysis, and fact-checking. They can also assist in drafting documents and briefs. However, they should not replace the decision-making authority of lawyers, who are accountable for the quality and ethics of their work.
• Train chatbots on diverse and representative data: To avoid biases and errors in chatbot output, lawyers should train them on diverse and relevant datasets, and validate their performance on real-world cases. They should also test them for adversarial attacks and robustness.
• Inform the opposing counsel and the court about the chatbot's role and limitations: To ensure transparency and fairness, lawyers should disclose their use of chatbots to the opposing counsel and the court, and provide them with the chatbot's protocols, data, and credentials. They should also clarify the extent and limitations of the chatbot's contribution to the case, and acknowledge its potential weaknesses or uncertainties.
• Supervise and evaluate chatbot output: Lawyers should monitor and assess the chatbot output on a regular basis, and correct any mistakes or inconsistencies. They should also review the chatbot-generated texts for ethical and professional compliance, and ensure that they meet the standards and expectations of the legal profession and the court.

The Benefits and Promises of Chatbots in Legal Settings

Despite the challenges and risks associated with chatbot use in legal proceedings, there are also many benefits and opportunities that they can offer. Here are some examples:

• Save time and effort: Chatbots can help lawyers automate routine and mundane tasks, such as document review, contract analysis, and legal research, allowing them to focus on more creative and strategic aspects of their work.
• Improve accuracy and consistency: Chatbots can reduce human errors and biases in legal analysis and decision-making, and ensure that legal documents and arguments are consistent and coherent.
• Lower costs and increase access to justice: Chatbots can provide affordable and accessible legal services to clients who cannot afford or access traditional legal representation. They can also help bridge the justice gap by offering legal advice and support to marginalized or underserved populations.
• Enhance innovation and collaboration: Chatbots can facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration among lawyers, data scientists, and technologists, and spur innovations in legal technology and AI applications. They can also help lawyers stay abreast of the latest legal developments and precedents.

In Conclusion

The case of a lawyer's inappropriate use of ChatGPT in a legal proceeding underscores the importance of prudence, ethics, and transparency when deploying chatbots and other AI tools in legal settings. Despite their potential benefits and promises, chatbots are not silver bullets, and they should not replace human judgment, expertise, and accountability. Lawyers should use chatbots as supplements, not substitutes, to their own skills and knowledge, and they should adhere to the standards and expectations of the legal profession and the court.

By following some best practices and guidelines, lawyers can reap the benefits of chatbots in legal settings, while mitigating their risks and limitations. Chatbots can help lawyers save time, improve accuracy, reduce costs, and enhance access to justice, but only if they are used wisely, ethically, and transparently.