Report comment

This is just an adjustment to how we practice law. Two thoughts appear from within my leaking aging brain. Firstly, this is the same (ish) type of problem that doctors had to grapple with once google became the go to place for first diagnosis, Doctors were having to have in depth discussions with patients justifying why they thought / diagnosed as they did. This has settled and AI will simmer down in the legal profession also. If a client wants to know why I've made the decisions I have done, then I am happy to discuss those for as long as may be needed, all day if the client prefers, but that will be at my hourly rate with payment on account.

Those of us who are competent and engaged in our work (I have ambitiously grouped myself into this descriptor), can tell immediately if AI has drafted some or all of a communication. I can tell if a company has taken advice and whether that advice is from a consultant or an external legal practitioner. Written language provides a lot of ancillary information and it is useful to gauge it when I am working. It is helpful.

As for AI phantom cases. I don't think any further guidance or legislation is needed at all ever. The rule continues to be, if you submit something to the court, then YOU are submitting it to the court and you would be well advised to be confident of its accuracy or you will be responsible for the consequences.