The High Court of England and Wales just did something all of us in the legal profession should pay attention to. In a recent ruling, Judge Victoria Sharp issued a warning to lawyers against misusing generative AI tools like ChatGPT in legal research. She didn’t mince words because for a fact AI can fabricate information. Furthermore, when lawyers use them blindly without cross checking the sources, that’s when the blunder happens.
Additionally, Judge Sharp stated the obvious – AI can generate confident, coherent-sounding content that is entirely false. When lawyers accept those outputs without verifying them, they risk misleading the court.
AI Can Assist, But Not Replace Legal Judgment
Judge Sharp didn’t outright ban the use of AI. She acknowledged that lawyers can use AI in research. But we have a professional responsibility to check everything against trusted legal sources. We do have to adapt to the technological advancements, but with the right foot (pun intended xD). What’s absolutely true is that no AI tool, no matter how advanced it is, can replace human judgement and due diligence.
As reported by TechCrunch, Judge Sharp highlighted a concern that has been presently growing with respect to lawyers that representing major tech companies. Apparently, they have submitted filings with AI-generated errors. In both cases she reviewed, lawyers cited fake or inaccurate cases.
Two Troubling Examples
In one case, a lawyer actually submitted 45 citations to the court, and in shocking turn of events 18 out of those 45 citations didn’t even exist. And moreover, the other ones misquoted the law, misrepresented rulings, or had no relevance to the case.
In another instance, a lawyer had included 5 citations that did not exist in her citation. Nevertheless, she denied using AI directly, but proceeded to admit that she might have have used summaries pulled from Google or Safari that included AI-generated content.
What was Judge Sharp’s opinion you may ask? She point blank, without any hesitation told that it was not acceptable. The court chose not to initiate contempt proceedings this time. But this doesn’t mean one can use AI for citation, she warned, “that is not a precedent.”
Ethics Must Catch Up With Innovation
Judge Sharp’s move here is to advocate the same thing to legal regulators, including the Bar Council and the Law Society, pushing for stricter regulations and guidelines. She further pressed on the fact that the legal community must do more to ensure that lawyers follow ethical standards when using AI tools.
She added, “Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction.”
Final Thought from One Lawyer to Another
It’s true, in order to keep up with the pace the world is running in, we need to use AI. But, that doesn’t mean we take full shortcuts in works that are considered noble. Afterall, our work has to be considered in top most for providing justice to the people. We can’t be complicit. Our profession rests on truth, accountability, and trust in the law. This ruling doesn’t reject technology and it’s advancements, it is just asking us to use it with caution and wisely.
