Staying ahead of the everchanging technology landscape in law often means embracing innovation. Generative AI, with tools like ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, among other Large Language Models (LLM’s), has been disruptive in the Australian legal profession for its ability to streamline many time-consuming tasks, allowing lawyers to focus on strategic, high-value work. However, with great progress comes greater responsibility, and a new reality is emerging that all legal professionals must consider, specifically; where do we draw the line between AI assistance and human judgment?
A Cautionary Tale from the Courtroom
The potential dangers of over-reliance on AI in legal work have moved from hypothetical discussions to real-world consequences throughout a number of cases. For example, the now-infamous Mata v Avianca case in the U.S. where lawyers unwittingly cited fabricated cases generated by AI. Without oversight, AI can mislead even the most seasoned practitioners.
Closer to home, this concern was further raised by Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, who highlighted the risks at the recent AILA National Conference on the Gold Coast.
Instances like Zhang v Chen [2024] BCSC 285, where a British Columbia lawyer faced sanctions for citing non-existent precedents, and more recently, in DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19, the ACT Supreme Court raised concerns about AI-generated character references that lacked authenticity, further spotlighting the urgent need for cautious use.
A Double-Edged Sword
Generative AI, undeniably, offers numerous benefits. At CJM Lawyers, we recognise that these tools can reduce the time spent on routine tasks, allowing our legal teams to be more agile and responsive to clients' needs. By automating mundane processes, we are able to pass on cost savings to you, our clients, while dedicating more of our time to deepening our expertise in our practice areas.
However, we are also particularly aware that AI’s capabilities come with potential risks, from “hallucinated” legal citations to misapplied precedents and inherent biases. Our awareness shapes our commitment to using AI thoughtfully and responsibly, which allows us to mitigate any inherent risk it poses with the overarching benefit AI offers.
Courts in Australia are already adopting guidelines that place the onus on lawyers to verify and fact-check AI-generated content to hold us accountable for our progressive AI use.
At CJM Lawyers, we believe that while AI can assist, it can never replace the sound judgment and oversight of a
dedicated legal professional. The law remains, at its heart, a human endeavour that is driven by the nuances of experience, empathy, and ethical commitment.
Disclaimer: This article is for general understanding and should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Any reliance on the information is strictly at the user's risk, and there is no intention to create a lawyer-client relationship from this general communication.
