In the second and final instalment of his latest legal column, Patrick Laure reflects on the use of artificial intelligence in the legal world…
II AI, knowledge and the law
“However, advances in artificial intelligence in several areas could make it possible to use AI more extensively in the legal field. For example, improvements in natural language recognition and natural language processing capabilities of AI could enable machines to understand and analyse legal documents more accurately and quickly than lawyers. “
• Using AI properly, for true knowledge.
Working with billions of pieces of data, we, as users, need to use the art of maieutic, a practice familiar to legal professionals.
Lawyers and magistrates alike need to know the truth, or at least how to use all this data in a way that will enable us to have a genuine exchange and establish a dialogue with the sole aim of revealing the truth for the perfect application of the law, in the name of justice.
This exercise goes beyond simple knowledge or understanding. It is an exchange in which AI begins to speak to us, thus filling what Plato considered to be dead and inert knowledge, that which is stored in books.
With AI, books begin to speak to us, but we still need to enhance it intelligently, because it is as much a reflection of ourselves as it is a discussion with a teacher of our choosing, a teacher who never get tired and with whom we maintain an intimate relationship, even if it is artificial.
We thus achieve a ‘faster understanding and analysis of legal documents than lawyers.
The new version of ChatGPT significantly improves its performance on the US bar exam. While the ChatGPT2 version struggled to reach the required level (mediocre results), the latest version 4.0 has just surpassed most American law school graduates. The Open AI robot scored 297 in an experiment conducted by two law professors and legaltech company Casetext. It ranks among the top 10% of candidates.
For AI, it is sufficient to apply reasoning based on legal analysis that follows ‘classical syllogistic logic’ (H. Fulchiron, questions de method).
Facts, articles of law that apply to the facts, and a perfect match between the two (at the very least, a search for harmony between the facts and the application of the law) lead to a fair judgement.
It is ultimately quite simple to understand AI can do much of the work assigned to lawyers.
III/ In this particular case.
It was a technical case. A call for tenders, a project manager, a project owner, a subcontract worth several million euros, a final general statement of account.
The client’s request was precise, a simple grievance to present, as were the signed contracts. It was a case where procedure reigned supreme. A preliminary impact study, an exhaustive subcontracting agreement, then a statement of claim with an appointed expert for each party to shed light on the compensation claim that had been initiated.
It was a case where AI clearly had a role to play, with articles of law and precision required to dissect the numerous contractual clauses of the subcontracting agreement.
However, the parties did not understand each other, finding no common ground, let alone room for negotiation, and after several exchanges of written documents, a lawsuit seemed to be the only way out.
While AI could eventually replace lawyers (see its ranking in the New York Bar exam), it cannot replace magistrates (to our knowledge, AI has not yet been invited to take the entrance exam for the ENM (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, or National School for the Judiciary).
Furthermore, magistrates interpret the law, while solicitors are the link between people and the justice system.
• There is a place for solicitors where AI is absent.
‘The work of solicitors requires skills and human qualities that cannot be easily replicated by machines.’
The debate took place between Monegasque lawyers and magistrates of the Principality, and even though the magistrates did not intervene, since there was a settlement before the trial, in such cases, lawyers often put themselves in the place of judges, precisely to avoid calling on them more than necessary.
In the case under discussion, analogy was the key.
It was important to get into the very spirit of the matter, beyond the law and beyond morality, and to bring the legal and technical analysis back to a human dimension, at least in terms of imagery.
Regarding the reality of the rubble that the client had to transport, having become the owner according to the contractual clauses binding it to the project manager, we had to present the grievance from a different angle than that of a cold analysis of the contractual clauses.
In the context of the case under discussion, without going into more detail than necessary, as the case was being handled by lawyers, it was essential to know and understand the impact of the burnt and unburnt explosives that had polluted the spoil in terms of destructive force, in order to get an idea of the reality of the construction site.
After a precise calculation of the destructive force used in the construction of the tunnel, it was determined that the site generated a power of 0.156 kilotons, or more than 1.2% of the ‘explosive’ power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This was not insignificant.
While we were exchanging conclusions between lawyers, and an expert report had been drawn up, followed by a counter-expert report, this latter analogical approach to the reality of a construction site paved the way for a future settlement agreement, putting an end to three years of proceedings.
In the exchange and dialogue between lawyers, what seemed to us to be inextricable, if not the forthcoming submission to the magistrates, we considered that the reality expressed in a cold, dead and inert manner, like reading, according to Plato, held a power of representation which, beyond appearances, allowed us to harmonise, to agree on the analogy with the terrifying destructive force of the atom in the hands of man.
Thus, night and day, for more than 18 months, in the basements of the Principality, beneath the windows of its inhabitants, 1.2% of the Hiroshima bomb was distilled, with no other harm than this simple observation. Without a single injury or complaint, except that of our client, whose hands were scarred by labour.
AI, however powerful it may be, will never be able to escape cold reasoning, and even if it can access a soul, that of the intimate relationship created between its user and the AI machine, it will always be heartless.
Hiroshima mon amour (4).
- Marguerite Duras Novel
Patrick LAURE
Secrétaire Particulier
+33 6 35 45 27 02
laurepatrick@wanadoo.fr
**The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation. The author and publisher are not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
