Author: Eimear Mccann

On 19^th January, we teamed up with the Society for Computers in Law (SCL) to delve deeper into the reality of AI in a Disputes setting.

Chaired by Eimear McCann from TrialView, our expert panel included Johnny Shearman, Practice Group Attorney at Greenberg Traurig; Helen Pugh, Barrister at Outer Temple Chambers; Jenny Gibbs, Associate, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP; and Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel and Director, TrialView.

As we transition from AI hype to practical usage, we are keenly aware of the importance of using the correct tools in the appropriate context, but how do we get there, and what can we learn from existing AI tools?  We explored these topical questions, whilst also pondering whether any potential disadvantages arise for certain segments of the profession, and briefly looking at the nexus between AI-driven processes and new economic models.

AI use cases and practical considerations

Opening the session with thoughts on a shift in thinking within the disputes world, a noticeable change was attributed to the explosion of generative AI, complementing the longstanding use of established AI tools in the eDiscovery space. The potential of generative AI, exemplified by Open AI’s Chat GPT, was underscored for its ability to unlock massive datasets, and facilitate natural language interactions. Anticipating a surge in generative AI applications for dispute resolution in 2024, the emphasis was placed on prioritising results and validation over the process itself. The legal community’s increasing interest in generative AI, particularly for first-layer legal research and summarising case material in legal documents, was highlighted.

Insights were shared on the practical applications of AI within the legal field. There was agreement on the importance of lawyers verifying the source of information relied upon by AI, emphasising that AI’s effectiveness is contingent on the quality of source data.

The panellists then delved into the practicalities and decision-making behind choosing relevant AI tools, and aligning these with relevant use cases, ensuring optimal uptake for law firms. Predictions included the evolution of litigation-specific tools used by lawyers, such as Practical Law with AI-assisted search functions. Expectations also encompassed changes in court procedures, with judges potentially using AI for drafting judgments; and the gradual introduction of AI in case administration and mediation. The ongoing need for lawyers to verify information sourced by AI tools was emphasised, with consensus of the potential of these tools in redefining professional negligence cases. For example, if an error was made which could have been spotted if a document had been run through an AI platform, then is a lawyer negligent for not making the check? How is that different from a lawyer not checking a tool, like Westlaw, to see if a case remains good law?

Johnny Shearman gave his thoughts on the balance of AI and human in this context, “Insurance is what makes the world go round. AI is a tool to be deployed but I can’t see a time in the near future when a lawyer won’t need to verify the source of information relied upon by the AI.  AI is only as good as the source data. For example, ChatGPT’s training data only went up to September 2021 and the last update brought it up to January 2022.”

The AI education gap

The perception of AI among practitioners and the need for education on its capabilities were debated, particularly in the context of potential resistance from certain pockets of the profession, and the disruption AI could bring to tasks performed by junior lawyers. The disparity of engagement between law firm and chambers, for example, was highlighted, with the consensus that the dyanamics of the relationship between lawyer and counsel may change. Recommendations included referencing comprehensive guidance, such as that provided by the Law Society, to navigate the best use of AI tools.

Taking a holistic view, Helen Pugh expressed concern about the future of the profession, “I think it is inevitable that AI is going to disrupt the way junior lawyers go about their tasks.  Lawyers often work in a team hierarchy. Paralegal, junior solicitor, partner, pupil, barrister. Take an example of a letter responding to a threat of security for costs. Typically the paralegal may do the research, the junior solicitor may do the first draft of the letter and the partner will make any amends. It may then get passed up to counsel who may then ask their pupil to double check the latest legal position and make any further comments. The research of both paralegal and pupil, and the first draft of the letter may putatively be done with AI. This is a real issue for senior lawyers, not just junior lawyers, because true ability is based on knowledge and experience accrued performing these tasks.”

A new economic model?

The panellists explored the impact of AI on economic models and client-lawyer relationships, with clear scepticism around any assumption that AI will inexorably lead to better outcomes.  The session concluded with insights into a recent case in the Canadian jurisdiction, where counsel’s fees were reduced due to the non-use of AI, sparking discussions about the expectations for lawyers to embrace AI, and the contentious question of charging reasonable fees for dual-generated output.

Helen Pugh succinctly opined, “We are not at the point where it should be assumed that AI ought to be used.  What is reasonable and proportionate should not be based on the use of AI.”

Expanding further, Jenny Gibbs took a philosophical stance, “AI isn’t yet at the point where it can be relied on, and even if utilising for research, findings need to be carefully checked, which takes time. But it is indicative that lawyers are expected to work more cost-efficiently and delegate where appropriate.  In years to come, it may well be standard practice to use AI, but I don’t think it will impact on the client-lawyer relationship.  Clients expect lawyers to work efficiently and to use the latest technology.  You wouldn’t now engage a lawyer who didn’t use a computer, and in 30 years clients likely won’t use a lawyer who doesn’t embrace AI.”

Wrapping up with audience Q&A, the potential beneficiaries of AI advancement were discussed, with the consensus that everyone could benefit if AI is deployed and engaged correctly.

Stephen Dowling concluded the session with the view that, “AI will be very disruptive. The ultimate beneficiary will be the end user, seeking access to justice, seeking legal advice under reduced cost.”

Conclusion

Whilst the emergence of new tech will always be met with both excitement and caution in the legal profession, a sense of pragmatism runs through our approach to AI in litigation, with a recognition that we are all learning, collectively. Whilst we’re not quite there yet, our focus is on sharing knowledge and experiences to make that journey as frictionless as possible.

You can watch a recording of the session on this link on the SCL website.

We will be running a further session on this topic later in 2024. You can follow us, and the SCL on socials, for further updates.

Construction has historically been slower to digitise than other sectors; however, there is a clear sense that this is changing. AI can have a significant impact on both the flow of a construction project, and on the way disputes in this industry are managed. Eimear McCann explores this further.

Streamlining Data

To fully grasp the potential, it is useful to understand both the layers of legal work involved, in conjunction with the layers of AI available.  One of the most blatant advantages of AI is rooted in its ability to handle vast amounts of data efficiently. Construction and technology disputes tend to involve copious amounts of complex documents, contracts, and technical data. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the role of the practitioner is to collate, review, analyse, identify, and categorise. Each of these tasks is usually framed in the context of large document sets, from disclosure through to submissions, reliant upon the interplay between a legal team, counsel, and the judiciary.

AI tools, however, can review, segment and process data at speeds well beyond human capacity, sifting through documents in seconds, extracting key information, identifying anomalies and patterns, and predicting potential points of contention.  The need to trawl through realms of paper to find a specific document or fact has been replaced with a simple search on a digital platform.

Interrogate the Evidence

Beyond that, AI presents us with the ability to really interrogate the evidence, to ask questions across the entire data set, with the retrieval of answers in seconds. Insights, which may take hours, or even days, to identify, can be retrieved and manipulated in minutes, expediting hearing and witness preparation, and opening up larger windows of time for lawyers, and counsel, to focus on the heart of the litigation.

AI-driven timelines can facilitate the assessment of the causes of delay in construction cases; ascertaining who might be liable for works falling off the critical path; AI can detect patterns in technology disputes to identify where code may have been plagiarised; AI can monitor graphics and visuals to intelligently pull together strands of evidence for the purposes of progression analysis. And the list goes on.

We are already starting to see how AI can enhance and augment dispute resolution, without replacing the purpose behind the task. This is an important differentiator. AI, when simply viewed as progress, should not detract from our layers of lawyering, but rather expedite time spent on the arduous and allow more room for creative submissions and advocacy.  If properly engaged, the application of AI could be hugely impactful on the disputes sector.

Impact on Outcomes

This potential transformation extends beyond the domain of hearing prep and disclosure exercises, feeding into the vein of live hearings, where evidence can be corroborated or challenged, using AI tools within a digital bundle.  What impact could this have on outcomes, particularly in technology and construction cases, which are heavily reliant upon niche expert evidence and technical nuances?

Looking to the future, we are likely to see a rise in AI tools which fall into the pocket of “predictive analytics”. Predicting case outcomes not only offers strategic advantages to those availing of such tools, but also enables parties to make informed decisions throughout the lifecycle of a dispute, empowering legal teams to better manage client expectations from the outset.  The hope would be smoother processes, inevitable costs saving, and happier clients.

Assertions of the fugacious role of AI in the legal world are dissipating, replaced with an unspoken acquiescence of the permanence of these tools in our everyday lives.  The construction sector will not be any different.

We are delighted to team up with the Society of Computers and Law (SCL) to explore AI’s impact on the disputes sector, in this upcoming online webinar.

Attendees:

This session will appeal to anyone working in dispute resolution, from law firm to in-house.  Anyone interested in legal tech and innovation will find the AI use cases of particular interest.

Outline:

Join us for a lively debate, exploring the impact of AI, as we move from hype to practical usage and implications.

Speakers:

• Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel, Director at TrialView
• Johnny Shearman, Practice Group Attorney, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• Chloë Bell, Barrister, 3VB
• Helen Pugh, Barrister, Outer Temple Chambers
• Jenny Gibbs, Associate, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP

Don’t miss this essential session for legal professionals in litigation, arbitration, and dispute resolution. Open to all interested in legal tech and innovation.

Book your spot via this link.

Generative AI has taken the world by storm. The impact on knowledge driven tasks and work is expected to be huge.

At the same time and with less attention, predictive modelling of litigation has been advancing significantly. Solomonic has been developing forecasting models using structured data that show high degrees of accuracy and indicate the ability to predict not only outcomes, but duration, and possibly arguments in the future.

The advances we are seeing are happening very quickly and pose a significant set of challenges for lawyers, their roles, and the future courtroom.

On 8th December 2023, Solomonic and TrialView joined forces to host an online discussion on the topic. We assembled a panel of leading practitioners and innovators, to explore how practitioners can not only think more creatively, but indeed thrive, in a landscape of AI and data-driven prediction.

Brian Perrott, Partner and Head of Innovation at HFW; Chris Dryland, Legal Director at Innovation award winning firm Pinsent Masons; and Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel and CEO of TrialView, engaged in a thought-provoking panel, covering the full spectrum of potential shifts in the disputes sector.

AI: From Prep to Hearing

The session opened with a discussion on the revolutionary potential of AI. As a language-based technology, AI’s prowess in manipulating, understanding, and predicting language is positioned to be a game-changer in the preparation stages of litigation. AI’s ability to handle and analyse vast amounts of data surrounding disputes promises a significant transformation in how legal professionals approach and manage evidence, and caseloads.

Dowling noted, “If you think about any event that occurs these days, particularly in commercial litigation, it is surrounded by and immersed in some kind of data trail – chains of emails, Slack messages, WhatsApp, letters, bodies of correspondence. That job we do as litigators where we are parsing information down will be radically transformed by AI.”

This capacity for data analysis, including pattern recognition and language understanding, is predicted to play a pivotal role in building compelling cases, and feeding into strategic legal decisions.  Whilst the implications of AI are all pervasive, flowing from early case management through to the courtroom, our panel collectively opined that the human touch will remain imperative in advocacy and persuasion.

Litigation Risk and Settlement

A central theme of the discussion was the potential of AI to mitigate litigation risk. Leveraging insights and patterns from data has the potential to completely transform the dynamics of dispute resolution, offering some sense of predictability in a fluctuating legal sector.

Perrott explained, “If you can focus on reducing the risk and making things more predictable, then the logical conclusion is that people would settle disputes because the answer is clearer, and the outcome is easier to predict. Solomonic is creating a new galaxy of opportunity, with data, looking at the performance of experts, judges, barristers, the past record. Of course, that doesn’t always inform the future, but it helps.”

By encouraging a culture of always thinking about how to make litigation less unpredictable, it was felt that we could see speedier resolution; conversely, panellists explored the concept that increased predictability may alleviate the fear associated with going to trial, with the potential to inflate litigation.

AI’s Role in Witness Preparation

The panellists delved into AI’s impact on witness preparation, highlighting the potential for real-time analysis of statements, identifying inconsistencies, and enhancing overall preparation processes. While AI brings efficiency to the preparation phase, it was felt that human judgment remains crucial in assessing witness performance and making strategic decisions during trial.

Dryland emphasised, “It is that human element which is irreplaceable by AI. It is really important that be elevated in terms of how we think witnesses will perform in the witness box, and tactical issues in terms of when to settle.”

Challenges and Considerations

The webinar addressed various challenges associated with the integration of AI in dispute resolution, including accountability for erroneous findings, and the need for human expertise in directing AI tools. Notably, panellists discussed the evolving nature of economic models in the legal profession, asking whether law firms should charge clients specifically for AI services, and whether AI could finally be the catalyst to shift away from the billable hour. The consensus emerged that the value brought by litigators will require a radical change in the face of AI and data prediction.

Predictions for the future

The panellists envisioned a future where AI is viewed through a collaborative lens, leading to more efficient trial preparation, shorter proceedings, and increased access to justice by reducing overall litigation costs. Whether the courtroom of the future will comprise of a robo-judge or clerk was still up for much debate. The need for responsible use, human expertise and a very thoughtful approach to evolving technology ranked high. We were left with a lot of food for thought, including the pertinent question, with the inexorable acceleration of AI universally, will lawyers share the risks with clients, if this means saving on time and costs?

Ultimately, it was agreed that AI and data prediction are integral to the future of the legal landscape. Practitioners seeking to stay at the forefront will recognise the need for adaptability and strategic utilisation of these tools now.

Perrott summarised, “I would encourage all those litigators, if they haven’t discovered a world of data prediction, to make it part of your litigation DNA, because it’s here to stay, and I find it very useful.”

Access the full webinar recording on this link.

New guidance, published on 12th December 2023, produced by a cross-jurisdictional group, aims to assist judicial office holders in relation to the use of AI in litigation. It sets out key risks and issues, with some suggestions for mitigation.

New Judicial Guidance on the use of AI in Litigation

The topic of AI in litigation continues to gain traction in the legal industry, and it is inevitable that it will have an increasingly important role in the future.

There are numerous benefits to the use of AI in litigation, from streamlining document review and enhanced case prediction to increased efficiency – all of which is saving legal professionals significant amounts of time and money.

However, the rise of artificial intelligence in litigation of course brings with it challenges as well as opportunities, which is why new guidance published by a cross-jurisdictional group, has been produced to assist judicial office holders and advise on the use of AI.

The guidance sets out key risks and issues, with some suggestions for mitigation:

4 key issues surrounding the use of AI in litigation

1. Confidentiality and prudent use

The guidance does not specifically mandate the disclosure of the use of AI tools in research/judgments, “provided these guidelines are appropriately followed, there is no reason why generative AI could not be a potentially useful secondary tool.”

Judges are directed towards paid services, though this is presented more as a recommendation than a requirement.

To uphold the integrity of the judicial process, judges are explicitly instructed not to enter confidential or private information into public AI systems.

Any errors of this nature are to be reported promptly as data incidents or breaches, highlighting the importance of maintaining a secure and confidential environment.

2. Supervision and responsibility

While AI serves as a valuable tool, the guidance underscores the personal responsibility of judges for the outcomes produced.

In addition, it also calls for judges to supervise the use of AI by their clerks or assistants, ensuring that the technology is applied judiciously and ethically.

3. AI as a tool for “non-definitive confirmation”

The guidance also provides a nuanced perspective on AI tools, suggesting that they are best seen as a means of obtaining non-definitive confirmation rather than immediately correct facts.

This cautious approach acknowledges the evolving nature of AI technology and the need for validation in judicial decision-making.

4. Potential applications of AI

Three potential use cases for AI, in a judicial context, are set out within the guidance:

Summarise

AI tools are capable of summarising large bodies of text. As with any summary, care needs to be taken to ensure the summary is accurate.

Create

AI tools can be used in writing presentations, e.g. to provide suggestions for topics to cover.

Admin

Administrative tasks, such as composing emails and memoranda, can be performed by AI.

Areas where caution is advised

The guidance advises against using AI for detailed legal research, analysis, and reasoning, recognising the limitations of the technology in this remit.

Raising awareness of risks

The guidance extends beyond the judiciary, seeking to raise awareness of potential risks for parties and their representatives. Concerns such as forgery, deepfakes, and hallucinated legal authorities are highlighted.

Additionally, -the document emphasises that, for some unrepresented litigants, AI chatbots might be their only recourse, underscoring the need for caution and an understanding of the technology’s limitations.

The full guidance can be found here, and whilst worth a read, this likely represents a foundation for an evolving set of guidelines for judges in the future.

Need further advice about AI in litigation?

Although there is much to consider when it comes to the use of AI in litigation, AI tools can have a huge impact on efficiency.

AI tools such as TrialView can not only streamline document retrieval and organisation but also enhance collaboration, compliance, and the overall strategic approach to legal proceedings, allowing you to work with enhanced speed and efficiency for every aspect of your case.

AI tools such as data recognition, smart pagination, de-duplication, and auto-indexing can ensure your bundles can be organised quickly and easily, whilst fast and efficient bundle creation enables you to work smarter, not harder and focus on outcomes rather than preparation.

If you’d like to learn more about the benefits of AI in litigation, book a tailored demo or alternatively contact our team to find out more.

Electronic ways of working in litigation feels very much like the norm, but there are hidden considerations in the features you may take for granted.

Electronic ways of working in litigation are more common than ever, but as digital methods become increasingly normal, we are beginning to see the hidden benefits of using workspaces and digital tools are starting to come to the fore.

Features such as search, tagging, automatic date detection, and indexing are essential components in any bundling tool, expediting the process, saving cost, and ensuring you adhere to the latest court guidelines.

What is a court bundle?

Court bundles include copies of all the documentation needed in legal proceedings. It ensures that each party has identical copies of all the relevant documents in a case.

Traditionally, court bundles have been hard copies. However, electronic court bundling software is often more beneficial than creating multiple copies, ensuring rapid upload and date detection to make the entire process more efficient.

But what about the hidden benefits that are often overlooked? And why should you consider going digital for hearing prep?

3 hidden benefits of electronic bundling explained

1. Search functionality

With TrialView, our intelligent search functionality allows users to quickly locate specific documents within a large electronic bundle. This efficient retrieval is essential for time-sensitive tasks during litigation, and having the capacity to find a fact or a document in seconds is indispensable.

In addition, searching electronically eliminates the need to manually sift through extensive document sets, saving valuable time and reducing the risk of oversights. Your client will thank yo, on both counts.

Finally. with electronic bundling, analysis is simply more efficient. Searching for specific terms, phrases, or keywords facilitates the identification of patterns and trends in the data set, making analysis easier than ever before – much more so than when working with boxes of paper files!

2. Tagging

With electronic bundling, you are able to tag documents with relevant keywords or categories. This enhances the organisational structure of the electronic bundle, ultimately making it easier for legal professionals to categorise and retrieve documents efficiently.

Tags can be customised based on the unique needs of each case, facilitating a tailored system which aligns with the nuances and complexities of the litigation.

Plus, tagging promotes collaboration within legal teams by providing a standardised method for categorising and referencing documents. This fosters consistency and clarity in communication, ultimately resulting in more streamlined processes.

3. Accurate dating

Organising documents by date is critical for presenting a chronological sequence of events, augmenting the understand of the timeline of the case, identifying key milestones, and helpful in establishing causation.

Not only that, but dates are also essential for constructing a timeline of events, which is particularly valuable in litigation for presenting a clear and compelling narrative to the court.

Another benefit of efficient and accurate date information is the ability to adhere to court-imposed deadlines and legal procedures. We all know that failure to meet deadlines carries serious implications – so accurate dating is essential to the smooth running of cases.

Experience the benefits of TrialView electronic bundling

The features outlined above may sound trivial, but they can have a huge impact on the effective management and analysis of electronic bundles in litigation.

These features not only streamline document retrieval and organisation but also enhance collaboration, compliance, and the overall strategic approach to legal proceedings, allowing you to work with speed and efficiency for every aspect of your case.

Whether you are working from Excel, PDF, Word, or even email, TrialView’s award-winning bundling software enables fast and efficient bundle creation so you can work smarter, not harder.

Plus, advanced AI tools such as data recognition, smart pagination, de-duplication, and auto-indexing also ensure your bundles can be organised quickly and easily

Why not join other legal teams and go digital with TrialView? To find out more about the benefits, book a tailored demo or alternatively contact our team to find out more.