*/
Artificial intelligence is undeniably the ‘big thing’ nowadays. Every business, every school, in fact every industry is looking at AI and asking the question – how can this make my life easier? but on the flip side, how can this make my life a whole lot more complicated?
The legal industry is no different. The obvious use of AI is to automate the many long and laborious tasks that solicitors have to undertake. The problem is that large language models (‘LLMs’), like GPT, are only as good as the material they are trained on, and they are trained on documents written by human beings. Human beings make mistakes, and so it’s no surprise that LLMs can go ‘awol’ when creating documents.
The famous case of the New York lawyer who had to own up to the judge that the case references he had included in his brief were, in fact, produced by ChatGPT. The model had not only created ‘bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes [but also] bogus internal citations’. It’s quite an extraordinary level of detail that the machine managed to create; however it was, of course, completely false.
So, is there a compromise? Are there other forms of AI that could add value to legal research without running the risk of making something up and finding yourself in contempt of court. At ICLR, we have Case Genie. Described by one solicitor as ‘a search engine on steroids’ for case law. Case Genie uses natural language processing to create a list of cases that it thinks are relevant to any document that the user has uploaded. The results are simply a list of verifiable cases, the key element is that a real-life person will have to sift through the cases, either manually or using the fine-tuning tools available to the user. Case Genie is simply a short cut, it’s not a guarantee that the cases suggested are the perfect cases, but it offers the chance to quickly search through hundreds of thousands of cases in a matter of seconds.
ICLR Online now holds over 400,000 transcripts. Case Genie is able to analyse and present these previously unknown cases. But just knowing the name of the case and the neutral citation is not going to give the user any idea of what the case is about. And this is where LLMs could lend a hand. ICLR is potentially going to use GPT to create a ‘case story’. A brief, AI generated summary of the case. These will be caveated with the advisory that these summaries should not be trusted, they should never be quoted or cited. That said, 99% of the time they will be perfectly inoffensive, giving a perfect flavour of the case without having gone down a rabbit hole leading to potential contempt of court.
We, at ICLR, feel that there are compromises to be made, there are options that can use AI as a complementary tool to research methods that already exist. As AI develops there will come a time when the reliability of summaries and research is comparable to a human being, but we aren’t there yet, and in the meantime the legal industry must look to embrace AI, but with the oversight or a real person.
To give a demonstration of how clever AI is, the below is an answer to the question ‘write a brief summary on if there is a compromise on the use of AI in the legal industry?’. This was created in less than five seconds by ChatGPT (which is useful, as it seems that I and the AI itself are on the same page):
‘A compromise on the use of AI in the legal industry can be reached by recognizing the technology as an assisting tool rather than a replacement for human expertise. By integrating ethical guidelines, ensuring transparency, providing affordable solutions, and offering proper education and training, the legal profession can leverage AI’s benefits while upholding the integrity and values of the legal system. Ultimately, a balanced approach will enable AI to enhance legal services and improve access to justice without compromising the human touch and the principles of the legal profession.’
David Cosway is the Business and Product Development Manager of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales (ICLR).
Artificial intelligence is undeniably the ‘big thing’ nowadays. Every business, every school, in fact every industry is looking at AI and asking the question – how can this make my life easier? but on the flip side, how can this make my life a whole lot more complicated?
The legal industry is no different. The obvious use of AI is to automate the many long and laborious tasks that solicitors have to undertake. The problem is that large language models (‘LLMs’), like GPT, are only as good as the material they are trained on, and they are trained on documents written by human beings. Human beings make mistakes, and so it’s no surprise that LLMs can go ‘awol’ when creating documents.
The famous case of the New York lawyer who had to own up to the judge that the case references he had included in his brief were, in fact, produced by ChatGPT. The model had not only created ‘bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes [but also] bogus internal citations’. It’s quite an extraordinary level of detail that the machine managed to create; however it was, of course, completely false.
So, is there a compromise? Are there other forms of AI that could add value to legal research without running the risk of making something up and finding yourself in contempt of court. At ICLR, we have Case Genie. Described by one solicitor as ‘a search engine on steroids’ for case law. Case Genie uses natural language processing to create a list of cases that it thinks are relevant to any document that the user has uploaded. The results are simply a list of verifiable cases, the key element is that a real-life person will have to sift through the cases, either manually or using the fine-tuning tools available to the user. Case Genie is simply a short cut, it’s not a guarantee that the cases suggested are the perfect cases, but it offers the chance to quickly search through hundreds of thousands of cases in a matter of seconds.
ICLR Online now holds over 400,000 transcripts. Case Genie is able to analyse and present these previously unknown cases. But just knowing the name of the case and the neutral citation is not going to give the user any idea of what the case is about. And this is where LLMs could lend a hand. ICLR is potentially going to use GPT to create a ‘case story’. A brief, AI generated summary of the case. These will be caveated with the advisory that these summaries should not be trusted, they should never be quoted or cited. That said, 99% of the time they will be perfectly inoffensive, giving a perfect flavour of the case without having gone down a rabbit hole leading to potential contempt of court.
We, at ICLR, feel that there are compromises to be made, there are options that can use AI as a complementary tool to research methods that already exist. As AI develops there will come a time when the reliability of summaries and research is comparable to a human being, but we aren’t there yet, and in the meantime the legal industry must look to embrace AI, but with the oversight or a real person.
To give a demonstration of how clever AI is, the below is an answer to the question ‘write a brief summary on if there is a compromise on the use of AI in the legal industry?’. This was created in less than five seconds by ChatGPT (which is useful, as it seems that I and the AI itself are on the same page):
‘A compromise on the use of AI in the legal industry can be reached by recognizing the technology as an assisting tool rather than a replacement for human expertise. By integrating ethical guidelines, ensuring transparency, providing affordable solutions, and offering proper education and training, the legal profession can leverage AI’s benefits while upholding the integrity and values of the legal system. Ultimately, a balanced approach will enable AI to enhance legal services and improve access to justice without compromising the human touch and the principles of the legal profession.’
The Bar Council is ready to support a turn to the efficiencies that will make a difference
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
What meaningful steps can you take in 2026 to advance your legal career? asks Thomas Cowan of St Pauls Chambers
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, explains why drugs may appear in test results, despite the donor denying use of them
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today
Ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC continues his series explaining the impact on barristers. In part 2, a worked example shows the specific practicalities of adapting to the new system
Resolution of the criminal justice crisis does not lie in reheating old ideas that have been roundly rejected before, say Ed Vickers KC, Faras Baloch and Katie Bacon
With pupillage application season under way, Laura Wright reflects on her route to ‘tech barrister’ and offers advice for those aiming at a career at the Bar
