Letters roundup: 3 February 2023

ChatGPT is no threat

Following on from your article on generative AI, ChatGPT is undoubtedly amazing technology but it is no threat to the legal profession. Sure, you can ask it to write a contract and it does a half-decent job, but then people can also download templates online. It does not mean they are right for the job, or it could be that the small business owner changes something without realising the impact of that minor adjustment.

Solicitors will remain essential because of our experience, knowledge and – less glamorously – insurance. If ChatGPT gets it wrong, it is on the user; if a solicitor gets it wrong, it is on their insurance. Using a solicitor is almost always about risk management. One way a client mitigates risk is by us being insured. Until ChatGPT insures or guarantees advice, it will not become mainstream.

Research I conducted last year showed that many small businesses and startups have used free or ultra-cheap legal resources such as downloading basic contract templates, but regretted it. The vast majority said they would prefer to use an actual solicitor with knowledge and experience. Law Society research arrived at a similar conclusion. I suspect the same for ChatGPT – it will be great fun to play with, but not used by any serious business owner (or sensible individual) for legal advice or documents.

That said, it is exciting to see how it develops and helps lawyers and our legal knowledge, databases and sites such as Lexis and Practical Law.

Steven Mather

Director, Steven Mather Solicitor, Leicester

There is much noise online surrounding advances in AI and the perceived risk to lawyers’ jobs. The public seems excited at the prospect of the great lawyer purge (and what they see as associated wasted costs, delays and general untrustworthiness). I disagree. Lawyers are not in any immediate danger of being replaced by AI.

Those making predictions are missing the important yet silent nuances surrounding the lawyer-client relationship. People mostly seek counsel from a lawyer not for their memory bank of legislative clauses and/or precedent case law. They want to feel reassured by an appropriately qualified person with whom they can place their trust and with whom they can build a rapport. The most obvious analogy I can draw is that of the support call automated robot response versus that of a human agent – I know which I would prefer to deal with in a crisis. A lawyer’s experience is their business. Lawyers exercise independent professional judgement. AI cannot currently emulate essential lawyer skills such as strategic and creative thinking, conflict resolution, negotiation, emotional intelligence and empathy. In short, all the things that make a good lawyer great. There are many other issues including that of data privacy laws, program bias in decision-making, lack of transparency and unclear legal responsibility.

For now, my opinion remains that AI will not replace lawyers. In fact, it will help us by saving us time on things like due diligence, contract management, discovery and legal research. It will make us quicker, more accurate and increase cost-effectiveness, which will in turn improve client care overall as we have more time to focus on what we are trained to do.

Katherine Muldoon

Founder, Muldoon & Partners, London and international

Stamp out Royal Mail swap shop

The Royal Mail say that stamps without barcodes cannot be used after a deadline now fixed at 31 July; it runs a ‘swap out’ scheme under which non-barcoded stamps can be exchanged for barcoded ones. This scheme has attracted criticism because (as I can confirm from experience) the stamps submitted are not always exchanged for stamps of the same denominations, or even the same total value.   

But it seems to me in any case that the Royal Mail is not legally entitled to invalidate non-barcoded stamps in this way. Purchasing a stamp marked, for example, ‘first class’ entitles the purchaser to use the stamp, without limitation of time, for the sending of a letter by first class post. The published terms and conditions confirm this and contain no term that would entitle the Royal Mail to render such stamps valueless at some future date.   

Any refusal by the Royal Mail to accept a non-barcoded stamp for the transmission of letters after July 2023 would surely be a breach of contract and unlawful. I should add that I have put this view to the Royal Mail several times without their controverting it. Am I wrong?

Richard Oerton

Bridgwater, Somerset

Safe space?

Regarding Andrew Sparrow’s piece on the British space programme, it was indeed a notable achievement to have navigated this complex regulatory framework in so short a time. However, it is worth reflecting on an unmentioned point – there was more to this mission than simply ‘commercial space activity’. The intended payload for the failed Virgin Orbit launch included two pairs of military satellites. Lawyers working in this field may like to reflect on what exactly they are getting involved in.

Peter Bolwell

Hastings

Judicial name game

I would have thought our justice system had more pressing needs than reform of judicial titles, but messrs Burnett and Lindblom see things differently. It is interesting that they do not see any need for reform of titles in the uniformed branch. Most of those in the uniformed branch are barristers while those in the tribunal system and district judges are mainly solicitors.

The consequence of these unwarranted changes in titles is effectively to perpetuate and worsen the distinction between solicitors and barristers in the judiciary, and to denigrate and demean those in the tribunal system. Upper tribunal judges, for example, are now simply ‘judge’, while circuit judges (lower in rank than upper tribunal judges) are ‘your honour’. Work that one out. Messrs Burnett and Lindblom ought to find something important to do.

Dr Stephen Pacey

Judge of the Upper Tribunal (retired), North Muskham, Nottinghamshire