Open Access Research Article
FUTURE ASPECTS OF LEGAL AUTOMATION – BY ANUPREET KAUR
Published Paper
Article Details
FUTURE
ASPECTS OF LEGAL AUTOMATION
SUBMITTED BY: MS. ANUPREET KAUR
YEAR- 2022
BBA LL.B.(Hons), 4th year, SEMESTER 7th
LAW AND TECHNOLOGY
UNDER
GUIDANCE OF
PROF. NEHA
RATHORE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...
CHAPTERISATION……………………………………………………………
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………
SUGGESTIONS …………………………………………………………………
BIBLIOGRAPHY….………………………………………………………………
INTRODUCTION
Automating legal tasks that are straightforward (like document coding)
is a prime concern. Routines cannot be used for more
tough issues. The argument about the potential breadth and extent of legal
automation has thus far centered on how easy or difficult legal
responsibilities are. The level of regulation or deregulation that is
anticipated to occur in the future, however, is equally significant to the
legal profession. It will take a very long time to
optimize situations with conflicting rights, particular fact patterns, and
open-ended legislation. Deregulation, however, may inadvertently deprive many
people of their rights, simplifying previously complex situations.[1] Like this, new regulations
that grant previously disadvantaged parties additional rights may make
conflicts that currently appear simple to automate since one party is so
obviously in the right. This Essay combines technological and societal studies
of the advent of legal automation by outlining how each one of these
discrepancies may occur.
More than most analysts have seemed to think, the future of law and
computing is unpredictable. One may anticipate that automation will eventually
completely replace attorneys if one mechanically extrapolates current patterns
in document analysis into the future, for instance.[2] However, two of the
world's top specialists in automation claim that rather than replacing
attorneys, computerization of legal research would support their job.
This research paper outlines a study agenda for more accurate forecasts
of Legal automation's future development.
CHAPTERISATION
Since the development of the typewriter, structural transformation in
the legal sector has been anticipated.[3] Despite this, lawyers have
benefited from the emergence and adoption of new technologies and mechanisms of
work, including word processing, citation software, electronic document
storage, and file records, automated document compared, electronic record
searching, e-mail, printing, desktop publishing, standardized legal forms,
and software for creating wills and taxes.[4] Automated and up-gradable
legal research is also possible through Lexis and West law.
We recognize the social and political aspects of the argument while
also extending and developing current arguments on the level of automatability
of legal work. Extralegal advances will be essential in establishing how
computation and cognitive intelligence will be balanced in the legal system in
the future. No career is isolated free from the power, prestige, influence, and
reputation trends that are prevalent in the society within which it is
ingrained. Major projects can be
delayed or stopped by courts that are frequently antagonistic to
enforcement action. Most importantly, when corporatist businesses and people
accumulate enough wealth, they can sway public opinion in a way that continues
to marginalize and even trivialize the kind of legal work that is customarily
seen as crucial to the legitimate and efficient operation of markets,
government policies, and society at large.[5]
Some forward-thinking innovators even consider the rule of law as an antiquated
tool that should be replaced by a network of marketplaces, reputational
facilitators, blockchain-based- based, and distributed autonomous
organizations. We use important factors that are both intrinsic to the legal
profession and extrinsic to it as major determinants to forecast the future of
legal automation. Various legal tasks are amenable to automation. A society may
be regulated and more or less receptive to legal safeguards.
In legal areas of practice that already provide services to sectors that
continue to deregulate, the first scenario—a primitive legal profession be
anticipated. That is a gladly for proponents of radical technologies like
Professor Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School. The legal academy's
followers of Christensen often see most of the law as nothing more than a
transaction cost placed on firms that generate jobs. From their viewpoint,
tendencies toward laissez-faire deregulation are reflected and reinforced by
automation. Automating clear, concise legal norms is simple. The social
standing of attorneys falls when their responsibilities are progressively
filled by robots, which undermines their capacity to suggest more intricate or
comprehensive regulatory frameworks.[6]
I. HIGH AUTOMATION, LOW
REGULATION SCENARIO FOR THE CALCIFIED LEGAL PROFESSION:
Laissez-faire or corporatist philosophies are strongly
connected. It is predicted that artificial intelligence would eventually take
the place of legal knowledge, lowering the salaries of many attorneys. A fall
in the power of law schools and attorneys might have possibly larger political
repercussions. For the past half-century, several law professors and attorneys
have urged more government interference in the economy. This is not shocking.
Lawyers in the contemporary regulatory state benefit from the large
government since their knowledge is required to comprehend and abide by (or
abuse) complex and constantly evolving laws A steady regulatory environment and
restricted bureaucracy, on the other hand, are more advantageous for the
inventors and entrepreneurs driving our computing renaissance. Lawyers with
power are likely to create systems that are more favorable to
regulation has a lesser impact on markets.
A.
High-Automation/Low-Regulation Legal Fields Innovations:
Decentralization may be favored by those at the pinnacle of tech
firms since it might directly benefit themselves or their shareholders if their
legal expenses are reduced. Additionally, most attorneys who work in white-shoe
law firms below the levels of collaboration have a vested desire to safeguard
the legal and regulatory frameworks that serve as the foundation of such
organizations. How many innovators and venture capital firms finally
finance and create the tools required to replace lawyers? Numerous technologies
have previously been created in fields with great automation and little
regulation, and they have had both beneficial and harmful effects on the legal
profession. These lawyers get hefty
fees not just for negotiating complicated legal requirements but also for
persuasive court judgments (such as broad condemnation decisions) that stop the
implementation of extensive bodies of legislation on important aspects of
commercial behaviours. A case in point is the astonishing restriction of the
application of antitrust law, which was brought about by the extraordinarily
effective campaigning of lawyers from major businesses and their collaborators
in the legal profession.
1. eDiscovery:
Some technologies, such as Relativity, HP Autonomy, Merrill, and
Stratify, have recently been created, at least in the domain of exploration.
Very few employees now scour through stacks of paperwork looking for references
to a search keyword. eDiscovery is in charge now. eDiscovery is "the
method that involves identifying, conserving, gathering, analyzing, examining,
and disseminating digitally stored material," as defined by the Sedona
Colloquium.[7] In
predictive coding, a document examiner gives measurements to a case based on
how helpful certain documents and key phrases are. Predictive
coding software searches a database for other articles that could potentially
be relevant as evidence in a situation based on these sources. Therefore,
anticipatory coding reduces the number of documents that require human
inspection and may cut down on discovery costs by up to 75%.
2. Publishers of
e-research and Forms:
Likewise, the era of "Shephardizing" a case by hand
is long gone. Citing materials may be located through internet-based
resources like Westlaw or Lexis, as well as a thorough search on google. Now,
simple wills, incorporation paperwork, and expungements may all be automated via
applications. Legal Zoom long could produce documents that resemble legal
"forms." Artificial intelligence (AI) software has been
utilized by several LLCs to incorporate their enterprises. Automated legal
solution businesses with a consumer focus have been sued on occasion. They may
be capable of assisting individuals who just require basic support, but they
should constantly be aware of the many complications that could surface when
matters get more complicated.
B.
Effect on Law Firm Profitability:
Wider economic tendencies toward disparity would be reflected by a
legacy of the legal profession. Those at the apex would discover software
complimenting their skills and contacts, expanding their reach and influence,
while those at the bottom of the profession would continue to be supplanted by
computers.[8] Similarly, when numerous
implicit and explicit regulations restrict legal action against them or divert
it into expedited, low-stakes adjudication venues, the richest corporations and
individuals would consider their acts more impenetrable. However,
additional information is needed to measure the effect of autonomous form
supply on income, such as, for instance, the amount of money these businesses
generate from this job. However, the financial loss might be significant; the
absence of concrete evidence to support a specific degree of dependency on such
employment does not immediately imply that there is no such reliance.
II.
SCENARIO OF SOCIETY OF CONTROL: HIGH AUTOMATION, HIGH REGULATION:
It is predicted that the deregulation of huge firms would proceed thanks
to a highly automated judicial system. Decentralization for small businesses or
people does not necessarily have to go in conjunction with the mechanization of
supervision and law enforcement. In several domains, the technology of law
enforcement has already been extensively studied. For instance, various levels
of information restriction have been layered into networks, files, CDs, and
surveillance equipment by rights holders.
III.
STATUS QUO SCENARIO: LOW AUTOMATION, LOW
REGULATION-
Numerous attorneys spend a great deal of time performing mundane work,
which is frequently not the greatest or most effective use of a lawyer's
skills. Machines might be able to take care of it. However, there are several
reasons why the speed of automation outside its current level seems improbable.
Why
is it possible for the Status Quo to continue with little automation?
It is simple to exaggerate the potential for technological advancement.
Although some LLCs utilize Fillable forms to prepare their legal paperwork,
using Legal Zoom for important commercial transactions might be unnecessarily
dangerous. Pessimism could prevail over the technology's spread.
A.
E-Discovery Legal Costs:
The long-term effects of eDiscovery are still unknown. Some legal
stances have already experienced a decreased demand due to automation, and this
trend might keep on going. However, a proponent of legal automated processes
also points out that increased profits for top law firms and participating
legal companies could result from further automation of revelation.[9] This is due in part to the
fact that top law firms can charge more for these offerings owing to the
extensive training needed to use the operating systems and the price of the
skill and ability product on its own. Additionally, even if automatic
vehicle eDiscovery reduces the size of the legal sector overall, some clients
may find it prohibitively expensive and provide details in that format,
particularly if significant amounts of disclaimers are needed, according to
business.com/the-e-discovery-market-is-growing-fast.
B.
The Close Cases Issue:
In simple circumstances, artificial intelligence would be the most
effective for rule-based legislation. An additional discovery punitive
measures case based on an IT department's regulations and the failure to locate
digitally stored evidence within a reasonable time frame are examples of simple
instances.[10]
Liability may be simply assessed in cases like this as well.
One of the main problems with widely using artificial intelligence in
policy legislation would be extreme or edge circumstances when the
behavior first seems to be illegal.
These are the usual complex situations where unique circumstances place
the case apart from established law. A situation where the contractual
terms are unclear for the sort of violation that took place would be one
example. Another example would be emergencies that might warrant specific
actions or a developing and mostly unresolved legal topic like cyber security.
It may be difficult to determine what law applies, even in areas of law
where it seems on the surface that commandment law is unbreakable.[11] The profession of law is
in many respects the art of traversing between complex forms of communication
and concrete legal conclusions or forecasts, thus the human factor is
inescapable (and perhaps even desired) and utilizes previous court
information to anticipate the conclusions of patent lawsuits).
Failure
to Recreate Human Creativity:
Furthermore, because creativity is a discretionary quality that is hard
to quantify, artificial intelligence will have a difficult time replicating it.
The rigorous rule must not extend to a certain set of information for purposes
of administrability, effectiveness, or justice, for example, and artificial
intelligence is likely to overlook this important policy matter as well.[12] These concerns are
highlighted by the fact that computers are unlikely to recognize when the
implementation of the law should be restricted and that artificial intelligence
has particular difficulty with manipulative, creative, and interpersonal
intelligence tasks. Leading proponents of legal automation also ignore the
proportion of total attorney revenue that is derived from tasks like legal
search, discovery, document preparation, and case result prediction.[13] Providing legal counsel,
gathering information, collecting documents, and putting facts into
practice are all key sources of income for attorneys. Many of these tasks
have no obvious computing replacements shortly, especially in the complicated
and rapidly evolving sectors of law, regulation, and policymaking.
Automating straightforward legal tasks that are uncomplicated (like
document coding) is a top priority. The argument about the potential breadth
and severity of legal automation has so far centered on how easy or
difficult legal duties are. The amount of regulation or
liberalization that is expected to occur in the future, nevertheless, is
equally crucial to the future of the legal profession.[14]
It will likely take a while before scenarios involving competing rights,
particular fact structures, and open-ended legislation can be automated.
However, deregulation may deprive many people of their rights and make matters
that were formerly complex easy. Take the current trend in contract law, which
allows people can waive their ability to participate in class lawsuits or even
seek redress in court via conditions of service contracts that practically no
consumer examines. If the only legal question crucial for most clients was
whether they "accepted," a robot could resolve almost all problems
occurring in the aftermath of such contracts. Once the legality and actuality
of consent under these circumstances are established, the results are wholly
foreseeable.
On the other hand, new regulations that provide underprivileged parties
additional rights may make it difficult to automate issues that now seem
straightforward since one side is so obviously proper under the law. Additionally,
it gives lawyers and policy advisers additional work to do as they attempt to
find a middle ground between the public's right to be informed and individuals'
rights to privacy and personal dignity. As a result,
legal and social change may make conflicts that were formerly contestable
practically automatable as well as make issues that were before mechanically
decided subject to new degrees of contestation.
SUGGESTIONS
As
an advocate, you desiderate to work in a field of law that is so professional that
you can offer your patron a service that technology cannot. Robots are less
effective when there is a dearth. Robots are neither good nor bad. They lack a
moral disposition of what constitutes a felicitous answer, adequate behaviours,
or befitting behaviours. Lawyers can become consultants in the sense that they
effectively become legal consultants in terms of advising clients on what to
do, why to do it, how to frame the issues, and how to provide a quality pickup
and return service. Client demand more from lawyers than mere legal analysis;
they want more help and added value, such as suggestions on how to deal with
difficult situations and a lack of confidence in the results of the research
process. They expect lawyers to consider, interpret and make suggestions
relevant to their needs and those of the client.
JP
Morgan Chase used a resolution assessment automation software, it is a
good example. Additionally, they anticipated having 360,000 payrolls of
agreement review work saved from the previous year. It was over in, maybe, a
few seconds. You may not have a robot legal counsel perched next to you, but
businesses and law firms use these tools to perform monotonous tasks,
communicate with you while you work on boring tasks, review massive
amounts of paperwork, seek out information, establish contacts, and reach
conclusions. This is what machines are undoubtedly good at. They'll do it
quickly, more thoroughly, and with minimal mistakes.
23%
of the work performed by the ordinary advocate may be automated, according to
McKinsey & Company. Non-legal professionals, settlements review and
administration, and operational efficiencies will replace partners, legal
experts, and legal professionals as the primary workers in the law enforcement
career. Some of these tasks may even be automated. Given that it's mechanized,
this may also result in a decreased need for that type of legal service. To
maintain and grow their professions, legal professionals must thus refine and
integrate their skills and increase their optimum advanced services for their
clients. That could be automated if our only goals were to produce more work,
faster, and with more efficiency, while also trying to be more
ecologically responsible and function at our best. As a lawyer, what you should
do is enter the realm of professional legal services, where you can deliver
your clients legal advice on things that technology can't.
Machines
are not flawless when there is uncertainty when the facts are vague or
fluctuating when there are right answers, and when it doesn't provide
knowledge. They lack any ethical knowledge of what constitutes the suitable
response, the proper course of action, or the erroneous course of action: there
is no appropriate or erroneous for the machines.
Because
that is what clients need, attorneys may develop into real counsellors in
terms of knowing what they must do, why they must do it, how to frame the
issues, and how to provide a higher level of valet service. Clients want more
from lawyers than just legal and analytical solutions; they want advanced
advice on how to resolve issues that go beyond trusting the conclusion of
the investigation and going beyond just the analytical outcome and the
projection. Legal practitioners are required to absorb the information, contextualize
it, and provide recommendations according to their needs and the client's
preferences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Isaac
Figueras, Comment, The LegalZoom Identity Crisis: Legal Form Provider or Lawyer
in Sheep’s Clothing, 63 CASEW.RES.L.REV. 1419, 1440 (2013).
Michael
Ariens, Know the Law: A History of Legal Specialization, 45 S.C. L. REV. 1003,
1007–10 (1994).
Scott R.
Peppet, Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward Managing
Discrimination, Privacy, Security, andConsent, 93 TEX.L.REV. 85, 92–95 (2014).
e Joseph
Esposito, Thinking Through a Strategy for Digital Rights Management, SCHOLARLY
KITCHEN (Apr. 23, 2012).
Annalee
Newitz, How Copyright Enforcement Robots Killed the Hugo Awards, IO9 (Sept. 3,
2012, 10:25 AM), http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo
awards.
Travis
D. Breaux et al., A Distributed Requirements Management Framework for Legal
Compliance and accountability, 28 COMPUTERS &SECURITY 8, 9 (2009).
Daniel
Martin Katz, Quantitative Legal Prediction–or–How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Start Preparing for the Data-Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry,
62 EMORYL.J. 909, 945 (2013).
Jack G.
Conrad, E-Discovery Revisited: The Need for Artificial Intelligence Beyond
information retrieval.
Ronald
E. Wheeler, Does Westlaw Next Change Everything? The Implications of Westlaw
Next on Legal Research, 103 L. LIBR. J. 359, 366 (2011).
[2] See ANDREW ABBOTT, THE SYSTEM OF PROFESSIONS
315 (1988); ELIOT FREIDSON, PROFESSIONALISM: THE THIRD LOGIC (2001).
[3] Floyd Norris, Under Obama, a Record Decline in
Government Jobs, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 6, 2012, 12:53 PM),
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-ingovernment-jobs.
[5] See, e.g., Mark Wilson, The Latest in
'Technology Will Make Lawyers Obsolete!', FINDLAW (Jan. 6, 2015, 11:39 AM),
http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2015/01/the-latest-in-technology-willmake-lawyers-obsolete.html
[6] Riccardo Campa, Technological Growth and
Unemployment: A Global Scenario Analysis, 24 J. EVOLUTION & TECH. 86, 89
(2014).
[9] e Clay Michael Gillespie, Legal Consulting
Firm Believes Artificial Intelligence Could Replace Layers by 2030, HACKED
(Jan. 2, 2015).
[10] John O. McGinnis, Machines v. Lawyers, CITY
J., http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_ machines-vs-lawyers.html (last
visited Apr. 12, 2015).
[12] John O. McGinnis & Steven Wasik, Law’s
Algorithm, 66 FLA. L. REV. 991, 993–94 (2014), available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130085.
[13]
Anthony Ha, LegalZoom Files for $120M IPO, Saw $156M in Revenue Last Year,
TECHCRUNCH (May 11, 2012),
[14]
Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (W.D. Mo. 2011); In re
Boettcher, 262 B.R. 94 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2001); Thomas v. State, 226 S.W.3d 697
(Tex. App. 2007).
Article Information
FUTURE ASPECTS OF LEGAL AUTOMATION – BY ANUPREET KAUR
Authors: ANUPREET KAUR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/11/07
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.