Several state bar associations and courts have leaped into the tar pit of issues that Gen AI seems to have raised. Many of these, at least early on, were little more than knee-jerk reactions. Most were brought about by a lack of understanding of the tools available and what they could do.

Recently, Kentucky’s Bar Association made a more studied and nuanced examination of the issues. The result was Ethical Opinion E-457 on: “The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law.” (By way of disclosure, I am a member of the KBA’s Artificial Task Force which is referenced in the Opinion. The opinions expressed here are my views and not necessarily those of the Task Force or other members. It should also be noted that the Opinion was published to the entire KBA membership in the May/June edition of the Bench & Bar Magazine. There is a 30 day period for comment before the Opinion becomes final.)

/

“My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.” 

The Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s, Alice in Wonderland

I have written before about the uncertainty many lawyers and legal professionals in small and mid-size law firms have when it comes to Gen AI . When I looked at this issue a couple of months ago, I said, “Most of the lawyers I talked to…had not adopted Gen AI tools. Most had little familiarity with what it could do, how it works, and how they could be affected by it. Most of them were genuinely frightened about using Gen AI, a fear fed by the publicity of hallucinations and lawyers being sanctioned for citing cases that didn’t exist that Chat GPT provided.”

But like so many things associated with Gen AI, this reluctance may be about to change for a couple of reasons.

Apple Intelligence: AI For The Rest of Us

Apple held its annual World Wide Development Conference (WWDC) this past week. One of the big things announced was the concept of Apple Intelligence. I have to admit, when I first heard the term, I thought it was a little hokey. AI for Apple doesn’t mean artificial intelligence. It means Apple intelligence. But like my good friend Brett Burney mentioned in his weekly In The News podcast with Jeff Richardson, the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that there was really something to what Apple was doing.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
– Martin Luther King

For some time, we (the legal profession) have collectively wrung our hands over the access to justice (A2J) problem in the US and elsewhere. But that’s about all we have done: despite all our consternation, there has been little real progress. And now that gap may be about to significantly widen.

Fundamentally, there simply can’t be much access to justice without access to the Internet. Indeed, there can’t be much access to the American dream at all without reliable internet access. Yet that access for millions of people who without assistance could not afford it is about to be cut off.

Lawyers need to advise clients of risks of Gen AI.

Another week, and I find myself at yet another legal conference focusing on AI and Gen AI. Lots of the now standard discussions about whether and how Gen AI will impact lawyers and the legal profession. Presenters droning on about the risks and benefits to lawyers of using Gen AI. But like so many things lawyers stew over, the focus of these discussions is almost always on the lawyer’s professional navels and not on the interests of their clients.

When lawyers do focus on their clients in this area, it’s mostly all about worrying about what Gen AI will do to the all-powerful billable hour, what it will do to their revenue, and whether lawyers will be replaced by a Gen AI version of Her (or Him). 

Lawyers worry mainly not about their client’s use and potential liability but about themselves.

But as usual, lawyers are collectively missing something. Their clients, who are businesses, and even individuals are using AI and Gen AI every day. They are using it to develop products. To manufacture products. To assist in making business and individual decisions. To assess risks. To create contracts. All the while, lawyers worry mainly not about their client’s use and potential liability but about themselves.

The International Legal Technology Association, or ILTA as it is commonly referred to, is no stranger to holding giant technology conferences. Each August, it puts on an annual four-day show that draws over 3400 attendees and some 150 exhibitors and sponsors. This summer’s Show will be in Nashville from August 11-15. The Show offers a wide range of content for every legal tech issue as well as a widely diverse group of sponsors and exhibitors.

Don’t tell me about your effort. Show me your results. Tim Fargo

 I have recently attended several legal tech conferences and other lawyer meetings, which were dominated by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) discussions and presentations.

Despite the rapid advancement of GenAI and AI technologies, the content at these events is pretty repetitive. Most of the presentations center on the dangers of lawyers using GenAi, and how the GenAi systems work. The presenters drone on about the “black box”. They pontificate endlessly about how the systems will revolutionize the practice of law in short order. How they will drag the moribund legal profession kicking and screaming into the 21st century. In many of these conferences, IT professionals and vendors outnumber bewildered lawyers and legal professionals. In most of these conferences, the event planners and speakers are not lawyers; if they are, they have advanced pretty far up the GenAI legal curve and speak geek more than legal.