Open Access Research Article
SUPERHUMAN CAPABILITIES OF AI IN LAW- FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO WHITE-COLLAR ROLES IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
SUPERHUMAN CAPABILITIES OF AI IN LAW-
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO WHITE-COLLAR ROLES IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - M. SNEHA GOUD
Research Scholar, MNLU Nagpur
ABSTRACT
The twenty-first century has champeroned
consequential technological progressment that pervades all notions of our
existence. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is applied forthwith to
conduct legal work once fulfilled solely by legal practitioners. Recently, the Constitution of India has
underwent a lot of transformation after adopting AI Technologies. Also, with
the implementation of AI technologies, a vast transformation happened, mainly
in the accessibility and transparency of the Indian legal framework. AI has
facilitated more efficiency in the Indian legal structure through its
techniques and has also redefined conventional legal roles AI apparatus are
very prompt and intelligent enough to offer case laws, statutes, a streamlined
research process, legal literature, and a summary of case analysis to Indian
legal professionals within seconds. Thus AI tools can be embraced as a
transformative tool and can be considered as a cause of justice for all. This observation contours what AI is and probe
the present day application of AI in the legal field. It also recognizes AI
products and evolution that are in the setting. The legal field, though
dilatory in the modification of this technology, is embarking to upturn the
momentum. Ultimately, it contends that lawyers will invariably be required in the
modus operandi of law, regardless of the constant and consistent progress of AI
and the change in the conventional legal
roles and responsibilities after the adoption of AI pertaining to the
transformation of legal roles in India harnessing AI for enhanced efficiency
and access to Justice.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology,
Machine Learning(ML), Legal Fields, Law, Indian Legal System
INTRODUCTION
This is an indubitable certitude that
artificial intelligence (AI) is undoubtedly transfiguring all of the industry
leveled over to compact settings but the repercussions is way more preponderant
than we formerly perceived. Nonetheless, there are trifling technological
progression in the Indian legal profession; lawyers even now ply methodologies
which have been in place within this indentation for eternity now. At present
it has become compliant to assemble, govern and reserve data and AI can be a
paradigm shifter when it comes to altering the means lawyers utilise, apply
data and outlook law wholly.[i]
One such massive disorderliness that Artificial
Intelligence (AI) can bring to endure on the legal profession is in its legal
research field. Nevertheless with AI apace with, Indian law firms will embark
on comprehending ineffable cognizance into the realm of legislation in an
instance. At this moment, legal research draws copious time and resources,
consequently producing law firm’s customary cost retrieval distress as less
profitably overlaying them.[ii] Though, AI may design a
level playing field throughout the overall legal community. In defiance of not
flexible on standard micro-scale or macro-sale law firms can complaisantly
endorse such podiums by application of AI research for law systems objectives
or additional requisites without preconception whose enthrall it might be
assisting.[iii]
To synthesize future-generations legal research arenas using
NLP, innumerable Indian legal tech startups are preserving time for the law
firms and discovering additional pertinent outcomes for them. As an alternative
of reckoning on ingenuous keyword-rooted probing, these platforms study the
entire subject of legal documents to impart more precise and prudent outcomes.
Furthermore astonishing is that a part of these start-ups are locomoting
rapidly to institute their AI research potentialities and have even launched
their own AI research labs.[iv]
However, lawyers not to mention law firms also agonize about
being outnumbered by AI which is not precised findings. On the contrary, it
will aid both lawyers and law firms become more potent and coherent. The
utilisation of Al can execute monotonous functions like document review,
contract drafting and even legal research. As an aftermath, advocates can
instantly partake in tactical ventures such as structuring alliance with
clients or contending cases in court while issuing authentication functions to computers.
AI can redefine the judicial system too; for an instance, judges may exercise
AI during a case to abstract both parties’ arguments in addition to analyse
pertinent laws & regulations.[v]
Subsequently, this would aid the judges prevail on notable verdicts before they
are delinquent.
The modus operandi of law is presently being afflicted by AI
technology. This is owing to the certitude that in the short term, AI would
likely be better of an aiding apparatus than an unequivocal substitute for
lawyers; at the moment, it can hitherto simulate contacts, explore recognize
documents and even convoy legal research. Recently, AI has also been harnessed
to conduct diverse functions like drafting contracts, forecasting legal
outcomes and even advocate judicial verdicts circumspecting sentencing or bail.[vi]
As a matter of fact, there are prospective perks of soliciting
AI technology in law. For an instance, it could aid in eluding exorbitant
errors and make attorneys operate adroitly. Furthermore, a few cases may require
rapid decision-making and research expedition by these devices to accelerate
justice.[vii]
Nevertheless, AI cannot yet supplant the human verdict mandatory for exercising
law. Although prior to plying this technology in some legal subjects it must
subjugate such matters as data-driven AI having rooted partiality and flawed
justifiability i.e., one cannot acknowledge the rationality thereupon its
verdicts just like humans do because of late the acknowledging of
justifications imparted by humans for why an artificial intelligence
methodology made assertive verdicts would be onerous to compile before a court
or other stakeholders working on a case entailing yields from these networks.[viii]
THE EXCEPTIONAL POTENTIAL OF
AI APPLICATION IN THE FIELD OF LAW
Attorneys use AI and Machine Learning
(ML) to analyse contracts more promptly and invariably as they aid in detecting
mistakes or flaws that might have been overlooked by professional lawyers.[ix]
At some point, algorithms are being applied to discovery — the judicial method
for determining accurate documents from adversary in the filing of a lawsuit.
Currently, ML is applied in this accomplishment. Among the prevailing disputes
of pleading and tracking the pertinent documents, to anticipate all the
disparate means, a concept may be outlined or corroborated stands primarily. At
concurring moment, certain documents are being secured from perusal and the
counsel (or the judge) might pursue in curtailing the compass of the search
eventually to not encumber the producing party. A further domain where AI
is hitherto applied comprehensively in the modus operandi of law is convoying
judicial research.
AI has been flawlessly entwined into
distinct research services as the attorneys might be unaware about the exercising
of AI in this domain.[x] The
keyword or boolean search method being the emblem of service for an eternity
had been aggrandized by morphological search. This implies that the ML algorithms
not only counterpart words to keywords but also attempts to acknowledge the interpretation
of words.[xi]
AI can yield subject matter as well as
study it. Unlike AI accustomed to energize self-driving cars where errors can
have inoperable repercussions, generative AI does not have to be quintessential
at all times. In reality, the abrupt and atypical mementos correlated with
AI-created projects are segment of what makes riveting. AI advents the
innovative process in a radically disparate means than humans, so the
trajectory besotted or matter of course can at times be astonishing. This connotation
of AI is called “emergent behavior.” Emergent behavior may pertain to latest
tactics to conquest games, exploring latest drugs or solely orating anecdotes
in innovative mechanisms. In the case of written subjects, human authors are
still required to administer the innovative process, deciding which of the
various AI-generated maxims or renditions to manoeuvre.[xii]
The AI must be educated to become a qualified legal practioner for conducively drafting
legal contracts. The process of “labeling” necessitates the accumulation of legal
performance data on distinct renditions in contract dialect by the developer of
AI. Then this labeled data is harnessed to educate AI on how to yield a good
contract. Though the legal performances of a contract are assorted by
jurisdiction and a dynamic organ of law, it is eminently setting-specific.
Further, the provisions of a contracts abide speculative and clandestine to the
parties as they are never spotted in a courtroom. The AI generating systems
educate on contracts for bounding the peril of augmenting deficient judicial
work alongside being virtuous. It is obscure to state AI contract drafters can
gain a cut above in the near future with these persisting impetus. AI apparatus
solely deficit the zone specificities and left the accuracy in language to
labour solitarily. Whilst the concurrent apparatus might be beneficial to draft
dialect, professional human beings are yet required for analysing the
productivity before complete utilisation.[xiii]
Additional innovative application of AI
is forecasting legal consequences. Precisely evaluating the probability of a
fortunate aftereffects in filing a lawsuit could be extravagant. This permits
the attorney to deliberate if they should take a case on juncture or endow in
experts or prescribe their clients to resolve.[xiv]
Regardless, applying AI in this subject may contemplate, or even augment, the
immanent partiality in the data of the criminal justice system. The data
accustomed to educate the ML prototypes is enthrenched on concrete arrests and
conviction rates that may be inclined against some populations. Thus it may
revere former injustices, or adverse, deceitfully shroud them in the array of
computer-generated non-partisanship.[xv]
impacts of AI application in the field
of law
AI emanates a host of questions
in the subject of practice of litigation:
- Whether inadequency to apply AI in
certain notions of law (like discovery) will constitute for dereliction of
duty? For an instance, there might ascend a professional duty to use AI in the
discovery if the non-usage of AI is depicted to have dilated the discovery
process that culminates for abridged declarations.[xvi]
- Whether criminal defendants should have
a prerogative to ingress AI apparatus in supportive of their case?[xvii]
- Whether attorneys are required to
declare their application of AI in a case? In that case, is it required to
declare educating data and other accruals applied for composing the Machine
Learning models?[xviii]
- Whether deficiency in productive
pellucidity by ML models signify them as disproportionate for certain
exertions in law?[xix]
- How non-existence of rooted
partiality contemplating chauvinism and racial discrimination based
convictions be verified?[xx]
AI
is an introductory apparatus for the source of justice acting as a means to
make the mode of litigation rapid and devoid of any mistakes and deletions. AI
might be an effective means to resolve civil cases in addition to upsurging
foreseeability without begetting an ethical catastrophe at the same time.[xxi]
It becomes highly controversial when AI
is exercised in supplanting for human verdict, particularly in the subject of
criminal litigation. AI is unprepared for this due to an amount of reasons.
Primarily, there might be subsisting partiality in the educating data which
would be augmented and further assimilated by the ML models. It might be possible
to subjudicate this complication as the method of eliminating partiality from
of our educating data might elicit us to comprehend and rectify paramount of the
immanent racial discrimination and chauvinism in the operation of judicial
regulations.[xxii]
However, there also prevails a delinquent
process complication of deficiency of pellucidity and justifiability with
application of the Artificial Intelligent Technology. It is not plausible yet
to interrogate an artificial neural network that studies in depth. AI being a
reiterate to the human race, exposes certain immanent blemishes. The method of
untwining an impetus on AI signifies that an exhortation might pertain us to a
prominent domain to acknowledge the corporeality including the impediments of
mankind justifications and elucidations of their verdicts.[xxiii]
However most significantly, the notion of
permitting algorithms to form liberty-depriving verdicts may solely be
unscrupulous. It is not improbable that machine learning algorithms will embark
on to forecast when a person is likely to perpetrate an ensuing crime with high
assurance.[xxiv]
Another imperative grounds to restrict
the application of AI in the criminal subject may be that judges, lawyers and
society wholly could progress to have credulous trust in these algorithms.
Inspite of the fact that the supremacy of the final verdict lies on the human
beings, they can be unduly compliant on technology-based exhortation or an
Automation Bias phenomenon as it is not unconventional for them in doing so
like that. With AI, this credence may be particularly mislaid since the
existent potentiality of the technology may not be as “intelligent” as they
seem.[xxv]
REFERENCES:
1. M.
Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’, Position paper
for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence in the
administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
2. M.
Scherer. ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?
Study on the Example of International Arbitration’ (May 22, 2019). Queen Mary
School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019.
3. L.
Julia. L’intelligence artificielle n’existe pas (AI does not exist). First
Edition, Paris 2019, p. 123.
4. D.
Kahnemann, Thinking, fast and slow, London: Penguin 2011 p. 43.
5. A.
D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 11(2)
International Journal for Court Administration 8.
6. H.J.
van den Herik, Kunnen computers rechtspreken (Can computers be judges?)?
(Inaugural lecture Leiden) Arnhem: Gouda Quint p. 33.
7. M.
Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’, Position paper
for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence in the
administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
8. Aletras
N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preo?iuc-Pietro D, Lampos V. 2016. ‘Predicting judicial
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing
perspective’.
9. F.
Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between law and
technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools of
Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9.
10. M.
van der Put, ‘Kan artificiële intelligentie de rechtspraak betoveren (Can AI
bewitch the courts)?’ Rechtstreeks 2019–02. p. 50–60.
11. Alex Pentland, ‘A Perspective on Legal
Algorithms’, MIT Computational Law Report 6 December 2019, p.4-6.
12. J.
McCarthy et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on
Artificial Intelligence (31 August 1955)”, in: Jerry Kaplan (red.) Artificial
Intelligence: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford: Oxford University Press
2016.
13. F.
Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between law and
technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools of
Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9
14. A.
D. Reiling, Technology for Justice, how information technology can support
judicial reform (diss. VU Amsterdam) Leiden: Leiden University Press 2009, p.
111–122.
15. Institute
for Crime and Justice Policy Research World Prison Brief, prisonstudies.org
last visited on 6 December 2019.
16. H.
Prakken. ‘Komt de robotrechter eraan (Is the robot judge arriving?)?’
Nederlands Juristenblad 2018-04 no. 207.
17. K.
Lum and William Isaac, ‘To Predict and Serve?’ Significance magazine.com,
October 2016.
18. M.
Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’, Position paper
for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence in the
administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
19. European
Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European Ethical Charter on
the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial systems and their environment.
Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2019.
20. A.
D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 11(2)
International Journal for Court Administration 8.
21. F.
Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between law and
technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools of
Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9
22. European
Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European Ethical Charter on
the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial systems and their environment.
Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2019.
23. Alex
Pentland, ‘A Perspective on Legal Algorithms’, MIT Computational Law Report 6
December 2019, p. 4–6.
24. A.
D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 11(2) International
Journal for Court Administration 8.
25. M. Scherer. ‘Artificial Intelligence
and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International
Arbitration’ (May 22, 2019). Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research
Paper No. 318/2019.
[i] M. Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’,
Position paper for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence
in the administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
[ii] M. Scherer. ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The
Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration’ (May 22, 2019).
Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019.
[iii] L. Julia. L’intelligence artificielle n’existe pas (AI does not
exist). First Edition, Paris 2019, p. 123.
[iv] D. Kahnemann, Thinking, fast and slow, London: Penguin 2011 p. 43.
[v] A. D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020)
11(2) International Journal for Court Administration 8.
[vi] H.J. van den Herik, Kunnen computers rechtspreken (Can computers be
judges?)? (Inaugural lecture Leiden) Arnhem: Gouda Quint p. 33.
[vii] M. Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’,
Position paper for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence
in the administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
[viii] Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preo?iuc-Pietro D, Lampos V. 2016.
‘Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural
Language Processing perspective’.
[ix] F. Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between
law and technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools
of Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9.
[x] M. van der Put, ‘Kan artificiële intelligentie de rechtspraak
betoveren (Can AI bewitch the courts)?’ Rechtstreeks 2019–02. p. 50–60.
[xi] Alex Pentland, ‘A Perspective on Legal Algorithms’, MIT
Computational Law Report 6 December 2019, p. 4–6.
[xii] J. McCarthy et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research
Project on Artificial Intelligence (31 August 1955)”, in: Jerry Kaplan (red.)
Artificial Intelligence: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford: Oxford University
Press 2016.
[xiii] F. Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between
law and technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools
of Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9
[xiv] A. D. Reiling, Technology for Justice, how information technology
can support judicial reform (diss. VU Amsterdam) Leiden: Leiden University
Press 2009, p. 111–122.
[xv] Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research World Prison Brief,
prisonstudies.org last visited on 6 December 2019.
[xvi] H. Prakken. ‘Komt de robotrechter eraan (Is the robot judge
arriving?)?’ Nederlands Juristenblad 2018-04 no. 207.
[xvii] K. Lum and William Isaac, ‘To Predict and Serve?’ Significance
magazine.com, October 2016.
[xviii] M. Hildebrandt, ‘Position on artificial intelligence and the law’,
Position paper for hearing/round table discussion on ‘Artificial Intelligence
in the administration of justice’ on at the Second Chamber of Parliament of the
Netherlands, March 29 2018.
[xix] European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European
Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial systems and
their environment. Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2019.
[xx] A. D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020)
11(2) International Journal for Court Administration 8.
[xxi] M. Scherer. ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The
Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration’ (May 22, 2019).
Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019.
[xxii] F. Contini, en G.F. Lanzara. (2017), ‘The elusive mediation between
law and technology’ in P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools
of Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and
Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018 p. 4–9
[xxiii] European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European
Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial systems and
their environment. Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2019.
[xxiv] Alex Pentland, ‘A Perspective on Legal Algorithms’, MIT
Computational Law Report 6 December 2019, p. 4–6.
[xxv] A. D. (Dory) Reiling, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020)
11(2) International Journal for Court Administration 8.
Article Information
SUPERHUMAN CAPABILITIES OF AI IN LAW- FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO WHITE-COLLAR ROLES IN INDIA
Authors: M. SNEHA GOUD
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/02
- 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.