ETHICAL MINEFIELDS IN AI-POWERED LEGAL TECH: WHO’S LIABLE WHEN A BOT GIVES BAD ADVICE?
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into the legal landscape, its capacity to streamline legal processes and assist in legal advice offers profound promise.[1] However, the rise of AI in legal services brings forward a critical question: Who is liable when AI tools make mistakes or give bad advice? This article explores the ethical implications of AI tools in legal practice, particularly around issues of liability when these systems fail. From unauthorized practice of law (UPL) concerns to algorithmic biases, AI tools raise substantial ethical challenges that the legal profession must address. This article investigates case law, regulatory frameworks, and scholarly insights to develop a framework for ethical AI implementation in law.[2] Through detailed examples, this paper explores the potential legal risks faced by developers, law firms, and clients using AI-powered tools.
[1] See ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Tech Competency Adoption by State (2023), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/.
[2] See R. W. Bohannon, The Ethics of Predictive Legal Algorithms, 24 Yale J.L. & Tech. 313, 320–25 (2022).
References
A. Bryson, Barriers to Fairness in AI Legal Tools, 34 Harv. J.L. & Tech. (2021).
ABA Ctr. for Prof’l Responsibility, Tech Competency Adoption by State (2023), https://www.americanbar.org.
ABA Formal Op. 498 (2021).
ALPS Ins., Emerging Claims in AI-Assisted Practice, Claims Bulletin (2023).
C. Newton, DoNotPay Sued for Practicing Law Without a License, The Verge (Mar. 2023), https://www.theverge.com.
Class Action Complaint, Smith v. RoboLegal Inc., No. 22-cv-01583, (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Clio, 2023 Legal Trends Report, https://www.clio.com/resources/legal-trends/ (2023).
Complaint, Upsolve v. James, No. 22-cv-00627, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
D.W. Woods, Legal Technology: Innovation and Its Discontents, 35 Geo. J. Legal Ethics (2022).
Fla. Bar, Ethics Op. 22-1 (2022).
Julia Angwin et al., Machine Bias, ProPublica (May 2016), https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
M. Cath, Governing Artificial Intelligence, 376 Phil. Trans. Royal Soc’y A (2018).
Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.1 (Am. Bar Ass’n).
N. Klein, From Code to Courtroom, MIT Tech. Rev. (2023).
OECD, Principles on Artificial Intelligence (2019).
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act), COM(2021) 206 final.
R. Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford Univ. Press 2019).
R. Weise, AI-Generated Brief Cited Fake Cases; Lawyer Sanctioned, Law360 (June 2021).
R.W. Bohannon, The Ethics of Predictive Legal Algorithms, 24 Yale J.L. & Tech. (2022).
Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt & Chris Russell, Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated, 36 Comput. L. & Sec. Rev. (2020).
State Bar of Cal., Formal Op. Interim No. 20-0002 (2021).
State v. Jackson, 604 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022).
U.K. Info. Comm’r Off., Penalty Notice Against LexServe Inc., Case Ref. COM0827654 (2021).
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Artificial Intelligence in Immigration Adjudication (2021).
Utah Off. of Legal Servs. Innovation, Sandbox Annual Report (20
