The lady chief justice says she expects ‘enormous opportunities’. But lawyers warn of the need for safeguards
AI in law has had a good week. On Tuesday, the government announced that the justice system is to take centre stage in its action plan for technology. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board were among the first regulators to sign up to the AI Growth Lab, to help develop AI-based systems in a safe ‘sandbox’.
The following day, the lady chief justice told the Lords constitution committee that judges had found submissions by litigants in person using AI to be ‘more helpful’ than those from litigants eschewing the tool. Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill added: ‘I am positive about AI, cautiously positive. I genuinely see there being huge opportunities for efficiencies within the justice system in all jurisdictions, provided we move cautiously and carefully forward.’
Referring to cutting the Crown courts backlog, she said AI could identify ‘which cases are ready for trial and which cases are not’, or ‘where a particular court centre has capacity’. Further down the line, ‘it may be that AI in due course will be able to predict which cases might or might not crack at PTPH or at a trial stage. That is a task that good listing officers are doing up and down the country now when they are trying to list cases.
‘There are enormous opportunities. We are not talking about AI doing the judging. We are talking about AI doing the laundry so that judges can do the art.’
In this, she is as one with lord chancellor David Lammy, who, speaking at the London Tech Week event, emphasised that AI would be about ‘augmentation… not about AI making the judgment’. He continued: ‘You cannot replace the judiciary, you cannot replace the prosecutor, you cannot replace your defence lawyer, but what you can do is augment that work with AI.
‘Clearly, we are not in a place where we want AI agents adjudicating in a particular case. We are in a place where the guardrails and safeguards are important, which perhaps is why the Ministry of Justice has been very much a sort of incubation, testing, experimenting place with those safeguards.’
'There are enormous opportunities. We are not talking about AI doing the judging. We are talking about AI doing the laundry so that judges can do the art'
Baroness Carr, lady chief justice
For AI on a wider stage, Lammy made his enthusiasm clear. ‘We know artificial intelligence will create jobs, jobs for our young people and children that have not yet been invented. We know artificial intelligence will change jobs and roles dramatically. There will be losses, and jobs will disappear entirely, which is why it is exciting to be here in the UK.’
The regulators joined the chorus. SRA chief executive Sarah Rapson said: ‘The lab will accelerate this progress, supporting the growth of legal services that benefit the public, and that maintain the high professional standards that underpin trust in the legal profession.’
Richard Orpin, chief executive of the Legal Services Board, added: ‘The AI Growth Lab is a pragmatic and timely initiative to accelerate the responsible adoption of AI in legal services. By bringing regulators and industry together, the lab can provide the clarity and confidence that legal services providers and innovators need to innovate safely and quickly, driving growth in the sector.’
Professional bodies were more cautious, but broadly backed the government’s ambitions. Andrew Thomas KC, vice chair of the Criminal Bar Association, welcomed Lammy’s announcements but highlighted ‘obvious concerns: the key is to educate judges, criminal barristers and solicitors, and investigators on the safe use of AI, so that its limitations are properly understood by all’, adding: ‘Enthusiasm for AI must not allow us to get carried away and blowing the precious MoJ budget on technology.’
He said: ‘AI tools should not be used without checks and balances. There are plenty of examples of lawyers and judges from civil and even criminal work who have come unstuck by relying on AI-drafted documents without checking the veracity of the content.’
Thomas also noted that the government has a dismal record in large IT projects. ‘In the past, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money has been wasted on ill-judged commitments to large-scale investment in computers and other technology which has then failed to live up to its promise – major problems with the rollout of the Common Platform computer system are just one recent example.’
Law Society chief executive Ian Jeffery also provided a reality check: ‘While new technology should enhance access to justice, it cannot replace vital funding and additional court staff. Robust safeguards are needed to protect us all and preserve the integrity of the justice system.’
No comments yet