AI in legal practice: Insights from Vialegis recruitment consultants

In the ever-evolving landscape of legal practice, one topic has taken center stage with great attention: Artificial Intelligence (AI). At Vialegis, we've been at the forefront of exploring the intersection of law and technology, recognizing the transformative potential AI holds for legal departments worldwide. From attending numerous AI events to even hosting our own, we've delved deep into understanding its implications.

Yet, amidst the buzz and excitement, we recognize the need for a nuanced perspective. That's why we've turned to our recruitment consultants, Sara Beernaert, Caroline Fabri, Marie-Laure De Leener and Valerie Hofman, to offer their insights. As experts in talent acquisition for the legal sector, they bring a unique vantage point, one that melds industry trends with the human element. Join us as we shine a light on their perspectives.

Caroline Fabri:

How do you feel about the idea of AI potentially taking on the roles of human judges in legal decision-making?

AI could potentially enhance the consistency of judicial decisions. An AI system is not subject to human errors such as fatigue or personal bias, which could improve the fairness and equality of legal decisions. This could be particularly beneficial in cases where objective facts and clear legislation prevail. However, I see several reasons why AI judges will not be able to completely replace human judges:

• The "human aspect" is lacking: jurisprudence often requires empathy. The interpretation of laws is not always black and white; it requires human judgment that takes into account nuances and the unique circumstances of each case. Judges can understand these human aspects better than AI systems, which usually operate based on data and algorithms.
• Ethics and justice: this is closely related to the human aspect. It is important to consider each case in its specific context and to take nuances into account (e.g., any mitigating circumstances). Only in this way can ethical and just decisions be made.
• Responsibility: judges must explain and justify their decisions. An AI-generated decision will likely be less clear in expressing the underlying reasons and considerations.

That being said, AI can still be used as a supportive tool for judges, for example, to analyse and structure enormous amounts of legal documents. However, the ultimate decision-making should remain in the hands of human judges, who, unlike AI systems, possess human judgment capabilities.

Do you believe there are risks associated with transferring control and decision-making authority to AI systems in the legal practice?

Yes, AI systems follow algorithms based on data and patterns, but they struggle to make intuitive, contextual, and empathetic decisions often required in jurisprudence. When decision-making authority is transferred to AI, it becomes challenging to determine who is responsible for errors or misconduct. The question of accountability becomes more complex, especially if decisions turn out to be incorrect. AI systems can be vulnerable to technical errors and manipulation. Poorly secured systems can be hacked, leading to corruption of decision-making.

Sara Beernaert:

Which advantages or disadvantages do you see in the use of AI for the legal profession?"

Advantages

• Efficiency and speed: AI can process large amounts of data quickly, significantly improving the efficiency of legal research and document analysis. This saves time and increases the productivity of legal teams.
• Cost savings: Automation of routine tasks such as document review and due diligence can reduce labor costs.
• Consistency and precision: AI can help ensure consistency in legal advice and decision-making by uniformly applying laws and precedents to similar cases.
• Predictive analytics: AI systems can identify patterns in data that humans may not notice. This can help lawyers better predict case outcomes and make more informed strategic decisions.
• Accessibility: AI can improve access to legal services by offering automated services at lower costs than traditional methods.

Disadvantages

• Employment impact: AI can lead to job reductions for legal personnel, especially in supporting roles such as paralegals and legal secretaries.
• Quality and nuances: Although AI is efficient in processing information, it may struggle to understand the nuances and complexity of human language and emotions, which are essential in many legal contexts.
• Legal and ethical issues: The deployment of AI in legal practice raises questions about responsibility, transparency, and privacy. It is often unclear who is accountable for errors made by AI.
• Access and inequality: While AI can improve access to legal services, it can also exacerbate the gap between those who have access to advanced AI tools and those who do not, increasing inequality in the legal system.

What ethical dilemmas do you anticipate as a result of the use of AI in legal environments, and how do you propose to address them?

AI can inherently make biased decisions if trained on biased data. This can lead to unfair treatment of certain groups of people, which contradicts the principles of equality and justice in law.

AI systems, especially those based on deep learning, can make decisions that are difficult to trace and understand for humans. This lack of transparency can make it challenging for lawyers, clients, and judges to monitor and challenge decision-making.

There is an ethical concern about the extent to which AI should replace human roles within the legal sector, especially considering the complexity and human aspect of many legal processes.

Marie-Laure De Leener

From students to teachers, almost everyone within the university world is struggling with the question of how to deal with artificial intelligence. How far should they go ? Let's delve into a recent article spotlighting the University of Gent's progressive approach to incorporating AI into academia. This institution is paving the way by embracing generative AI tools like ChatGPT, not only for master's theses but also for educational assignments. However, this initiative prompts reflection on the responsible use of AI and its potential implications for students' learning and professional development, particularly in fields like law. Now, let's turn to Marie-Laure for her perspective on this development.

How do professionals see this evolution, especially considering initiatives like the University of Gent's progressive approach to incorporating AI into academia? What if law students get used to relying on AI?

AI can make life easier through automation, can provide inspiration, ease routine work,... but starting professionals must remain alert to the pitfalls. AI is (still) a tool that needs some (human) control. Questions regarding privacy and reliability of the information also remain current.

Are commonly used AI – such as ChatGPT - suitable for conducting legal searches?

Professionals come to the conclusion that the answers from (the free version of) ChatGPT to questions about Belgian law are currently not always reliable, for reasons including:

• It has a knowledge limit and therefore does not have access to the most current (legal) sources.
• It does not have access to the well-known databases of legal publishers
• There is insufficient insight into the sources used by ChatGPT
• ChatGPT sometimes makes up information (hallucination phenomenon)

This does not alter the fact that ChatGPT can be useful for an initial exploration of a legal problem, just as Google Search is used by many (especially young) lawyers and law students to quickly find information on a legal subject. However, it is then crucial to critically evaluate and verify the reliability of the information provided by ChatGPT by comparing it with information from more traditional and reliable legal sources. At the same time, it is important to be vigilant against anchoring bias, which involves over-reliance on the information that is obtained first.

Valerie Hofman

In conclusion, as we navigate the transformative journey of integrating AI into legal practice, it is imperative to embrace this technology while acknowledging its limitations and ethical considerations. AI undoubtedly brings remarkable efficiency, speed, and consistency to legal processes, enhancing productivity and potentially improving access to legal services. However, the human elements of empathy, ethical judgment, and nuanced understanding remain irreplaceable.

As highlighted by our recruitment consultants at Vialegis, the future of legal practice will increasingly hinge on a synergy between AI and human intelligence. Professionals must harness AI's capabilities as a supportive tool, leveraging its strengths in data analysis and predictive insights, while ensuring that ultimate decision-making and ethical considerations remain firmly in human hands.

Moreover, the importance of skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and effective communication will be paramount in this AI-enhanced landscape. Legal professionals must cultivate these abilities to navigate the complexities AI cannot address and to provide holistic, human-centered legal services.

As AI is here to stay, our collective task is to adapt and thrive alongside it, fostering a legal practice that benefits from technological advancements while upholding the core principles of justice and humanity.