As ChatGPT only includes data up to January 2022 you are out of luck finding the most recent cases on your topic. Does that mean that you must Shepardize? * (I know, an archaic, dinosaur term.)
It’s hard enough for a lawyer’s ego when he loses a case to another lawyer or law firm. But what about to a robot law firm not authorized to practice law?
We’ve already seen lawyers sanctioned for reliance (to their detriment) on AI for brief writing. What’s next? When there’s a human and a robot working in tandem, who does the work? A study published in October in the journal Frontiers in Robotics and AI found a person who works alongside a robot is less likely to focus on details than when they work alone. Anyone who has worked in a team knows that one or two people usually carry the load while the others sit back and watch; researchers call this ‘social loafing.’ It turns out that people treat robots the same way.
The issue is whether Social loafing makes us more efficient and our lives easier, or whether it makes us slackers, and for lawyers as well as for other professionals, that is not a good thing.
State bars are starting to think about the various ramifications of AI for legal practice. Including that lawyers tell clients when they use and bill for AI and that the lawyers are responsible for reviewing AI work product. But that’s not all. Client confidentiality is a huge concern, along with oversight, advertising, legal fees, and costs.
So what’s the moral here? Don’t rely on AI for finished and correct work product… “Don’t rely on AI?” Catchy and it rhymes.
Source: Above the Law
* To “shepardize” a legal case means to trace its history and note various changes. Shepardizing is especially important for lawyers when citing cases that may have subsequently been overturned or revised in some way
Leave a Reply