English Judges Proceed With Using AI For Law

Judges in England’s long-established judicial system have been granted authorization to utilize AI in producing verdicts. While artificial intelligence (AI) might be helpful for opinion writing, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary warned last month that it shouldn’t be utilized for research or legal studies due to the technology’s ability to create false information and provide biased, misleading, or erroneous results.

In light of the government, businesses, and society’s conflicting portrayals of fast-advancing technology as both a blessing and a curse, this cautious approach is proactive for a field that has been sluggish to adopt new technologies.

The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice published an ethical code on using AI in judicial systems eight years ago. Although it was outdated regarding technology, it touched on important topics that judges should follow, such as responsibility and safety measures. There is a lack of AI direction from the US federal court system, and there is too much fragmentation at the state and county levels to implement a uniform strategy. Various federal and municipal courts and judges have determined the guidelines.

The courts have acknowledged the technology in the guidelines but have not fully embraced it. There are many cautions about the technology’s limits and potential issues that can arise from unfamiliar users. First on the agenda is a warning against chatbots like ChatGPT, the conversational tool that made headlines last year and is responsible for much of the excitement around the technology. After two New York attorneys used ChatGPT to cite hypothetical examples in a legal brief, the courtroom’s technology problems became well-known.

Since much of the legal content used to train AI systems originates from the internet and is often based on U.S. law, judges in England and Wales were warned not to reveal anything private or secret. Jurists with massive caseloads and a habit of producing hundreds of pages of lengthy rulings may employ AI as a supplementary tool when drafting background material or summarizing facts they already know.