German Judicial System is attempting to leverage artificial intelligence
Piles of folders and outdated regulations: Technology remains a mystery in many corners of the German judicial system. Gradually, the realm is now starting to explore the concept of Artificial Intelligence - encountering various challenges.
When contemplating the daily grind in a law office, one may envision hefty folders and law books, lengthy court days, or client consultations. Tech innovations seldom paint the traditional picture of the legal profession. However, the sector is undergoing a transformation - shifting towards Artificial Intelligence (AI).
"AI-driven tools are particularly applicable in the legal field as many AI-inspired applications available on the market are text-based - and most legal work revolves around written communications," explains Karsten U. Bartels, head of the IT Law Working Group at the German Bar Association. AI is capable of summing up judgments, gathering arguments, or drafting initial drafts of lawsuits, appeals, and other legal documents.
AI suffers from hallucination issues
This could especially help in class-action suits, such as diesel cases wherein countless suits share a similar factual context. AI could not only lighten the legal burden for the claimant drivers but also for the defendant corporations and courts. "In handling such mass proceedings, AI is not merely useful but essential," says the Berlin tech legal expert.
However, the boundaries were illustrated in a case in the US last year. A lawyer relied on the chatbot ChatGPT to research precedents for a situation. He cited a handful of cases in his court application that later turned out to be fabricated. Under oath, the New York lawyer admitted he hadn't intended to deceive the judges but merely trusted ChatGPT to verify the cases' authenticity. Matthias Grabmair, a Legal Tech professor at the Technical University of Munich, claims that work is still in progress to address the so-called hallucination problem - AI occasionally fabricates answers or results. Although the likelihood of obtaining misleading information from AI has diminished, it cannot be completely eliminated.
Focus on Client Protection
The use of AI raises significant questions regarding data protection and attorney-client privilege. After all, clients' names are confidential information that cannot be input into open AI language models such as ChatGPT. "We can make use of AI types where the data stays under our control and falls under the strictly regulated domain of European providers," explains Nathalia Schomerus, responsible for AI at CMS law firm.
CMS partnered with AI startup Xayn to develop a language model targeting legal tasks - branded Noxtua, which, according to the firm, is the first independent European legal AI language model to date. Whether an AI or a research assistant writes the initial draft, ultimately, makes no difference for clients or courts, says Schomerus. "The final legal advice responsibility always lies with the human, such as a partner or associate lawyer."
Regulatory Guidelines in Development
The American Bar Association (ABA) issued a statement about the use of generative AI at the end of July. The US law body sets out certain guidelines for lawyers, including protecting client data and disclosing AI use to clients, fair fees for AI-assisted legal services, and honesty with the courts.
The Federal Bar Association (BRAK) - the German equivalent of the ABA - confirms that the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe is drafting a guideline for handling generative AI involving German experts. Despite existing legal constraints, these systems carry great potential, says BRAK Vice-President Christian Lemke. "The use of AI holds significant efficiency gains in the legal profession, eventually benefiting the client." Whether clients will pay less for legal advice in the future remains to be seen. At least, according to the traditional billing scheme in many law firms, more efficient work through AI could mean lower costs, suggests Stefan Schicker, head of the Legal Tech Association Germany.
A Peek into the Future
The prospective benefits that AI may bring are largely accepted within the industry, says Schicker. Consequently, the sector is gearng up for the challenge. High initial costs for AI systems and corresponding training must be factored in. "AI offers great opportunities for the industry. But, a fair payment system is essential," says Schicker. The shape of this payment model - such as paying on the service's value as opposed to time spent - is currently under discussion within the industry.
Overall, AI is anticipated to find more extensive application in the legal field in the coming years, which even judges will need to adapt to. "Courts will soon be overburdened and even more so in the future," suggests Schicker. In an attempt to address this, says Schicker, "specialist AI systems could soon be used by laypeople to draft lawsuits, leading even the judges to turn to AI for responses."
And AI will continue to progress. "There will certainly be an evolutionary leap in coming years that will elevate AI software quality, both in law firms and courts," says Grabmair. "Time-consuming searches, manual structuring of large datasets - these activities will eventually be automated, changing legal practice."
The integration of AI in the legal field could potentially lead to cost savings for clients, as more efficient work through AI could result in lower costs, according to Stefan Schicker. Furthermore, the use of AI may eventually lead to laypeople drafting lawsuits, and even judges turning to AI for responses, as suggested by Schicker.
In light of the increasing use of AI in the legal profession, regulatory guidelines are being developed to ensure the protection of client data and attorney-client privilege. For instance, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe is drafting a guideline for handling generative AI that involves German experts, as confirmed by the Federal Bar Association (BRAK) in Germany.
