Tag: AI

Posted on

Artificial Intelligence and the Law

Who is “ROSS” and why is he going to take my job?

As you may have heard mentioned in class (maybe once or twice) the legal profession is changing due to a number of influences, one of which is the pervasive development within the information technology sector, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence (SURPRISE!).

Maybe you’ve heard of “Watson” or “ROSS”, maybe not. But let’s just clarify a few things regarding who these troublemakers are, what they are about, and why your job is definitely threatened by both of them—but arguably not for another 10 years at least (whew!)

Who? What?

Watson: Watson is a technology platform developed by IBM, named after the company’s founder Thomas J. Watson. Watson uses language processing, machine learning and cognitive computing to reveal insights and answer questions from inputted information. He has been successful at analyzing data and providing solutions based on supporting evidence in a variety of areas including the medical field and the law.

Fun Fact:

In 2011,Watson competed against two of Jeopardy’s greatest human champions in a match. Watson won earning $77,147 –Rutter brought in only $21,000 and Jennings $24,000.

ROSS:

Initially ROSS was a submission in an international tech competition where IBM challenged universities to come up with commercial uses for their Watson platform. ROSS is an artificially intelligent “lawyer” developed by U of T students as a legal research tool. ROSS allegedly eliminates the monotonous task of legal research so that lawyers can spend their time focusing on what is important—clients. Because legal research is patterned and repetitive, that is the best recipe for computer automation and hence, the development of ROSS. Intended to be a platform for lawyer use, you can ask it any form of legal question in natural language and ROSS has access to a vast legal databank and sifts through the information to find relevant and accurate legal answers.

Will … or rather when will Ross replace lawyers?

How quick and easy is it to employ ROSS? Besides ROSS platform itself, all you need is an Internet connection and, voila! According to rossintelligence.com he arguably eliminates time “wasted” on training sessions. “Let Ross help you accomplish more than you ever thought humanly possible.”

Now this is a claim I take issue with. Training sessions are important and ROSS is not about to eliminate the need to complete CLEs (they are inherently important in and of themselves, but that is a discussion for another blog). There is value in keeping your industry and case knowledge updated.  No matter how wonderful and useful ROSS may be there are some barriers to overcome…

a) It’s going to take time to learn how to work with ROSS

b) What happens when the Internet cuts out? What happens if there’s a glitch? (Technology is great and useful, when it works)

But most importantly…

c) What about the articling students?

That brings me to my next question: so when will he take your job?

Arguably he already has. ROSS has been bringing in a number of subscription fees and the system is already being used by several law firms including sole practitioners and big law names like Dentons, Latham & Watkins as well as BakerHostetler. The fact that ROSS doesn’t need breaks or sleep (like most articling students) and has the ability to research and work around the clock gives firms a competitive edge —catch: ROSS doesn’t burn out!

But “old law” as we know it places importance on legal research skills and that is primarily what most articling students spend their time doing. Hypothetically, let’s say as time passes, technology further advances, and ROSS becomes more affordable to the point where he is employed by almost every firm in Canada. How are articling students going to learn the ropes? Will there be a need for articling students at all?

None of these questions can be answered for certain but ROSS and other AI that promotes industry efficiency is certainly not going away. The articling process and the value of articling jobs (insofar as the scope remains to complete legal research) are going to diminish and it is very likely that if there are any articling jobs left that whole program is going to experience a radical shift from the way things were done in the “good old days”, involving copious amounts of memo writing and legal research. ROSS is learning how to do that too!

But let’s face the facts here. The legal profession is comparatively one of the most conservative professions there are and the partnership pyramid scheme (dare I say) is still in full force today – and no senior partner in a bigwig firm is going to give up their passive income from all the hours their junior associates are billing overnight. No, this isn’t going to happen the day after tomorrow either. But the market forces are creating tension, clients are becoming better informed, globalization is alive and well, and the call for change in the profession has been happening for some time. Though it will not happen overnight, change is already happening and law students need to prepare themselves for the changing profession appropriately. Flexibility and adaptability are paramount.  Within our career span, tools like ROSS and other AI platforms will be integrated into our everyday practice and will become the norm– that is for certain.

Posted on

The Human Element

It’s true, computers are invading the earth – in fact I no longer use a key to get into my house, and apparently my television is smarter than I am. As mentioned in The Future of Employment, tasks that once required human skill are now being completed by artificial intelligence. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne point out that not only are hard-skill tasks being taken over by computers, but also soft-skill “non-routine” tasks are being completed by technology. Basically, the ability to write legal opinions or to provide medical diagnoses are no longer restricted to human capability.

Though I should probably be celebrating the fact that our society has come far from the days where the invention of the wheel was a huge technological breakthrough – I still cannot seem to muster up enough enthusiasm to be happy about EVERY computerized invention. In fact, I personally believe that we as a society should tread lightly where technology replaces human skill as a main purpose, rather than a byproduct. Sure, Richard Susskind may say that I am experiencing the first stage of denial (of the three stages outlined in chapter 8 of Tomorrow’s Lawyers). At times, this is true. There are days where my denial is unreasonable and I think, “pish posh Mr. Kowalski, the threat of extinction isn’t even real!” However, the days that I choose to be real with myself and try to prepare for the inevitable changes to come in the legal profession, I realize that my denial actually comes from an underlying fear – the fear that a profession that is so heavily based on relationships will one day become a profession full of drones.

If this fear were to become reality, it would completely shatter the very reason that I chose to become a lawyer. My mother was a social worker, and very early on I came to appreciate the satisfaction in helping others resolve their issues and improve their lives. However the key to my mother’s success was her ability to empathize and to not treat her cases systematically. I was drawn to the legal profession because I knew, and still know, that I can make a difference because I genuinely care. However my passion does not come from a tiny computer embedded in my brain, it comes from within – it’s the human element. It is this very human element that drives many great lawyers to put forward the strongest arguments and to do their best work, and it is this very human element that allows clients to trust lawyers with their issues.

John Lanchester puts it best in his article, The Robots Are Coming, where he points out:

“For many years the problem with robots has been that computers are very good at things we find difficult but very bad at things we find easy. They are brilliant at chess but terrible at the cognitive skills we take for granted, one of the most important being something scientists call SLAM, for ‘simultaneous localisation and mapping’: the ability to look at a space and see it and know how to move through it, all simultaneously, and with good recall.”

I believe that “SLAM” is what lawyers do on a daily basis. During my summer articling experience I realized the importance of knowing my audience; understanding the sensitivity that needs to be afforded to clients; and to read social cues of the professionals I worked with in order to do my job well. I definitely do not know the science behind my proposition, but I truly believe that computers are not capable of the above. A computer can be equipped with the best algorithms to exist, but there is nothing like adrenaline and passion when a solicitor closes a tricky transaction or a litigator delivers a difficult argument.

Though I wait with open arms for technology to reduce menial tasks that come with being a lawyer, such as formatting a document or compiling single PDF’s into one file, I am not looking forward to seeing artificial intelligence take over aspects of the legal profession which require passion and drive. We as a society need to be cautious of extinguishing the human element.

 

Posted on

Will a Robot Take Your Job?

The BBC is running a news series called “Intelligent Machines” looking at artificial intelligence and robotics, including such wonders as corporate earnings reports and short news stories written by machines.  It reports that, according to Boston Consulting Group, by 2025 up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots.

What about us?  The BBC also provides a handy little tool for checking if you will be replaced by a robot.  Type the name of the job into the box and it will give you a percentage (of likelihood that you will be fired to make way for a robot).  Lawyers do quite well in this exercise.  You have to search using British terms for legal roles (because it’s the BBC).  Solicitors get “it’s quite unlikely (3%).”  Barristers and judges (in one category) get the same result, “it’s quite unlikely (3%).”  A few other random ones I looked at: dental nurse, “it’s too close to call (60%)”; cook, “it’s fairly likely (73%); architect, “it’s quite unlikely (2%).”

It is sort of fun to play with this.  But it poses the question in a very blunt and binary way.  I think a more critical question that we all need to ask ourselves is “will a robot take part of my job?  Which part?”

Recall that machines are already writing corporate earnings reports.  A chunk of work for corporate lawyers is writing securities disclosure for publicly traded companies.  We kind of like to think this takes a sophisticated blend of knowing what the regulations require the company to disclose, understanding the client’s business, and being sensitive to shareholder relations concerns.  But in all honesty there is a lot about this exercise that is quite mechanical.  The objective data – the company’s results – determines within quite narrow parameters what the permissible writing choices are.  If a machine can write corporate earnings reports, it can’t be long before they’re writing prospectuses and annual reports.  There would probably also be a need for final checking and tweaking by humans.  That’s where the deep knowledge of the rules, the company’s business, and the perceptions of shareholders would be all-important.  For all I know this is already happening.

So let’s say that this is an example of something that’s now part of the job for some lawyers, and that robots are likely to take most of it.  What does it mean for our profession if this kind of work is taken over by the intelligent machines?

Here’s an interesting excerpt from the BBC story:

Narrative Science chief scientist Kristian Hammond has previously said that in 15 years’ time, 90% of news will be written by machines but, he told the BBC, that didn’t mean that 90% of journalist jobs would go.  “It means that the journalists can extend their reach. The world of news will expand,” he said. “The journalists will not be generating stories from data. That unambiguous, not-open-to-interpretation stuff will be done by machines.”

I am convinced that this carries over to law.  Some percentage, quite possibly an alarmingly large percentage, of what lawyers do now will be done by machines.  That doesn’t mean the same percentage of lawyers’ jobs will go.  It means the world of law will expand.  We won’t be wasting time doing utterly brainless stuff like footnotes, or somewhat brainless stuff like drafting disclosure from scratch.  We will be using our complicated, empathetic human brains for challenges that really need them.

Proudly powered by WordPress