This capability has already existed for decades thanks to Westlaw and LexisNexis. These are indispensable tools in the lawyer’s kit.
replyYou're kidding, right? Using Astra to comb through cases is far faster than doing it manually in Westlaw. Models for research are pretty good now.
replyThere’s no question that the technology has improved. It’s just that the way GP described the situation made it sound like there weren’t legal indices before.
replyYes, actually, because Lionel can suffer a consequence. He can be sanctioned. He can be disbarred. He can be sued. He can be thrown in jail.
replyAI can not meaningfully suffer consequences for what it does, and the trend is to remove the human from the loop more and more.
Furthermore, it's entirely conceivable that you have a law firm staffed by lawyers who more-or-less just say "yeah sure whatever" to what this thing does and, when asked about what can be done to appeal something, or how a document didn't make it into evidence, or how a subpoena wasn't filed, just shrug their shoulders and go "iunno". Vibe-practicing law, basically. You need to have an idea of how they're using AI and in what parts of the case.
That same stuff can all still happen tot he lawyer who uses these tools. If he makes an egregious enough mistake, he's liable.
replyAnd that's why you want him to have to disclose that he used those tools.
replyWhy do the tools matters? He is equally liable if he makes the mistakes without them.
replySo that you know he is more likely to make a mistake. Just like why many people avoid software written by LLMs, because it is much more likely to have bugs.
replyIf Lionel submits junk from an AI, he can still be sanctioned, disbarred, sued, and thrown in jail, just as he could if he let some incompetent paralegal screw up and he submits the resulting documents without checking them.
replyIt's ultimately his name on the documents submitted to the court.