There have been reports of personal injury victims who have used AI (artificial intelligence) for their legal advice, to only later find they have problems getting the redress they need.
Their claims against the wrongdoers who caused them the harm can be weakened or delayed, or even fail completely due to dud advice from AI-generated answers.
There is no doubt that AI, such as Chat GPT and Google Gemini, is a rapidly emerging computer science set to make a huge difference to all our lives in some form.
It already touches many everyday things many of us use, such as basic customer service when we contact our banks online, translating text, or helping us to write emails.
The possible benefits and efficiencies of its proper use are undeniable.
Today lawyers are advising clients in an age where clients are undertaking their own research using AI, analysing their cases throughout the process, and even choosing their lawyers having consulted AI. I have worked with several clients where AI has recommended me.
Some law firms are already using ‘closed’, or ‘private’, AI systems where information is not accessible to the public to complement their work, with great success. The technology can help with processing large amounts of data and drafting documents. The potential to save valuable time is huge.
AI is, however, totally reliant on accurate and measured information being entered into it in the first place, along with the use of clear and effective prompts when people choose to use it.
But the key word here is that AI ‘helps’ people with tasks. The final checks have to be done by qualified professionals because AI alone cannot deliver the individual, accurate, and nuanced legal advice injured victims of negligence must have to successfully pursue a claim for compensation.
There have been reports of AI sometimes being guilty of overconfidence, as it generates a response to a question or request based on patterns and not on an understanding of an individual’s particular situation. Injured people may also unwittingly ask the wrong, or misleading, questions.
One APIL member says they have seen cases where legal advice has been issued to a client, who has then used AI to generate more case law or other information which they believe to be relevant to their case. It takes a lot of time to wade through pages of detailed material, which invariably turns out to be irrelevant.
There have already been reports of ‘hallucinations’ infecting legal arguments in some instances, or sometimes quoting cases that do not even exist.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently warned the profession that it is increasingly concerned about AI-generated?‘hallucinations’?in?research, advice, and submissions to courts. Solicitors remain accountable for all work and advice which is delivered to their clients, whether AI had a hand in it or not.
Another potential danger of AI is the possible repercussions for the legal professional privilege between clients and their lawyers to speak openly. If confidential information is entered into AI, perhaps by a client seeking a quick summary of a sensitive legal document, for example, it has the potential to amount to a breach of client confidentiality and the waiving of legal privilege, leading to possible serious ramifications. It could delay and even derail a case.
Personal injury law is profoundly about human beings and the trauma they have needlessly been put through, where small details matter. Success and failure of a claim can come down to the timing, and the wording, or interpretation of evidence. Currently, AI does not know when to investigate further, or when to be cautious as a claim progresses, but an expert PI lawyer does.
A PI lawyer has the very best interests of the injured person they represent at the centre of the process. Their goal is the best outcomes for victims of negligence.
AI is an incredible tool with great potential for good. But the checks and balances, and overall responsibility for its use must lie with informed, expert, human beings.
Like any major advances in technology there comes great responsibility. Clients nor lawyers should become slavishly reliant on AI.