Category: Uncategorized

At TrialView, our focus is on streamlining the dispute resolution process. With our AI functionality, we balance innovation with practical tools to help make your case preparation easier. One of our newest evolutions is Timeline Creation functionality.

This feature facilitates instantaneous generation of chronologies based on provided case document data. Powered by artificial intelligence, our software swiftly parses through pertinent case information, including names, locations, and events. It then aggregates these elements into a succinct and easily comprehensible chronology.

Tailored Chronology Solutions
Busy practitioners will be familiar with the burden of hearing preparation, which is why we focus on creating tailored features, which not only save time, but also add value to your case. Furthermore, granular user access permissions can be configured to ensure that each team member accesses only the information pertinent to their role and responsibilities.

Real-Time Updates
Automatic alignment between the case timeline and supporting evidence ensures that any modifications or annotations made to the latter are instantaneously reflected in the chronology. This real-time update mechanism bolsters accuracy and coherence within the case management process.

Simultaneous Team Collaboration
Our software fosters seamless collaboration among legal practitioners, co-counsel, expert witnesses, and other stakeholders, irrespective of geographical constraints. This collaborative ecosystem facilitates the sharing of information, task assignment, status updates, and other essential communications, thereby promoting alignment and synergy within the team.

Linking and Relationship Mapping
Our software empowers users to establish meaningful connections by linking diverse pieces of information—ranging from facts and evidence to contacts, images, and issues—thus facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the case. This interconnectedness allows team members to swiftly delve into the source information associated with a specific event within the chronology, thereby gaining invaluable insights and context.

Automated Chronology Generation
A pivotal advantage offered by our case management software is its capability to seamlessly incorporate events into your case chronology with automated precision. Users can effortlessly create new chronology events with just a few clicks, all the while remaining engaged with the pertinent documents or evidence under review.

So, now that you know what our software can do, what are the benefits?

Enhanced Efficiency and Productivity
Documentation of litigation chronologies stands as a cornerstone in substantiating legal arguments. However, conventional manual workflows render this task among the most arduous in the legal process. With the integration of automated timeline creation, this process is streamlined, expedited, and remarkably efficient. Consequently, legal professionals can reallocate the time previously consumed by manual chronology management toward tasks of greater strategic import.

Facilitated Understanding and Expedited Onboarding
For firms engaging frequently with co-counsel on litigation matters, the adoption of these tools expedites the onboarding process. Equipped with a comprehensive, interactive visual representation of critical case information, team members can swiftly grasp the case’s context, delve into pertinent details, and commence meaningful contributions without delay.

In-depth Analysis and Reporting Capabilities
Our AI tools offer the potential for analytical review and clarity into case dynamics and prevailing trends, leading to actionable insights. By scrutinising historical data and performance metrics, users can discern recurring patterns, evaluate case viability, and make informed decisions.

At TrialView our aim is to serve as the go-to software for any legal team who are looking to streamline their disputes practice, and shift away from arduous manual, labour intensive work, towards a streamlined and more efficient workflow through technology. Our timeline creation functionality is just one of the countless ways we are working to improve our product and help you and your team make the transition to the new age of digitised legal work.

Find out more by requesting a demo – experience the power of TrialView today.

A blog post by TrialView intern, Matthew Crofts.

Quinn Emanuel & TrialView: A Judicious Look at AI

 

 

Speakers: Sir Geoffrey Vos, John B. Quinn, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, Elizabeth Wilson, Stephen Dowling

The legal profession stands on the cusp of a technological revolution, driven by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) – This was the central theme of a recent panel discussion featuring prominent figures from both the judiciary and legal practice. The event explored the transformative potential of AI, its implications for the legal profession, and the balance between technological adoption and ethical considerations.

It’s all about Trust

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, opened the discussion by addressing the critical question of confidence in AI, commenting that the adoption of AI in minor disputes, involving small sums, demonstrates a growing comfort with automated systems. However, he stressed that public trust must be maintained, especially in more serious matters, such as criminal sentencing and family matters, where human judgment remains crucial. Sir Geoffrey Vos pointed out that while AI can provide brilliant summaries and assist in disclosure, the legal system must ensure that justice is perceived to be delivered fairly and proportionately.

Rising expectations

Elizabeth Wilson emphasised the rising expectations from sophisticated clients who are increasingly aware of AI’s capabilities, noting that clients might question law firms who do not engage AI tools, which can efficiently produce high-quality legal summaries and insights. This expectation is further influenced by the judiciary’s use of AI, potentially setting a new standard for legal practice. Wilson argued that law firms must balance the adoption of AI tools with maintaining client trust and ensuring high quality legal services.

Training and Transition

The panel discussed how AI is reshaping legal education and the skills required for future lawyers. Highlighting the fact that young lawyers will be trained in a world where AI is integral, it was agreed that the nature of their roles, and the competencies they need to develop, will shift. This transition underscores the importance of preparing new lawyers to work effectively alongside AI, leveraging its capabilities while understanding its limitations.

Balancing Ethics and Efficiency

The discussion moved to the ethical implications of AI in legal practice. Whilst AI can save on both time and costs, the profession must also consider moral and ethical implications. Moreover, transparency is key; for example, if the public perceives decision-making as delegated to machines, it could fundamentally undermine trust in the judiciary.

AI and Empathy

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith highlighted the inability of AI to express empathy, a critical component of judicial and legal decision-making. While AI can assist with factual analysis, it was opined that human judges are essential for understanding the nuanced, emotional aspects of cases. This distinction could be deemed vital to ensure fair and compassionate outcomes.

Liability Shifting

The discussion shifted towards individual accountability, and the ongoing responsibility of lawyers to exercise caution with AI tools. Concerns about potential errors from AI-generated content inexorably led to a question on the liability of tech companies providing these tools; for example, if an AI tool generates an erroneous fact or summary, which is relied on during proceedings, does any liability rest with the tech company?

AI: Disputes in Decline?

Sir Geoffrey Vos concluded by addressing the future challenges and opportunities in AI adoption. He questioned whether factual disputes may decline in numbers, given that we have so much recorded data at our fingertips. John B. Quinn highlighted the ongoing need for human judgement, in light of the very subjective nature of evidence, and arguably there will always be different versions of an argument which fit within the boundaries of the data produced.

Final Thoughts

We are really only at the beginning of a challenging relationship with a very fast evolving technology. Whilst both the judiciary and practitioners are keen to regulate and curtail AI tools, there is a growing acceptance of the efficiencies to be gained, and a recognition that inertia may be the biggest obstacle if we are truly to progress and embrace new ways of navigating disputes.

Arbitration Alchemy: AI, Psychology and Decision-Making Dynamics

Speakers: Dr Ula Cartwright, Toby Landau KC, David Blayney KC, Myfanwy Wood, Stephen Dowling.

As part of an exciting week at LIDW 2024, TrialView’s director Stephen Dowling chaired a stimulating discussion on the psychological aspects of AI adoption in international arbitration, kindly hosted by Serle Court. He was joined by Toby Landau KC, Dr. Ula Cartwright-Finch, David Blayney and Myfanwy (Miffy) Wood, who each provided a unique view as to which cognitive biases affect legal decision-making and the potential of AI technology in reducing their negative effects.

Dr. Ula Cartwright-Finch opened the discussion by explaining the difference between unconscious bias and cognitive bias. While unconscious biases are automatic, unintentional judgements which humans make based on their own background and experiences; cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking which can affect our decision-making and judgements. This often occurs in situations when brains are overwhelmed with enormous amounts of incoming information. Since we do not have an infinite capacity to process all of that information, we rely on mental shortcuts to help us analyse the information and to make decisions. The reliance on mental shortcuts can lead to flaws in our reasoning processes. By being unaware of such biases in professional environments, decision-makers run the risk of making unfair and unjust decisions.

Dr. Ula Cartwright-Finch explained that, in the context of legal decision-making, overconfidence bias, confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and recency bias are most commonly found. For example, overconfidence bias occurs when an individual overestimates their own abilities, knowledge and the accuracy of their predictions. Legal professionals may over-rely on their experience and expertise and thus be overconfident in the accuracy of an assessment, for example in the context of predicting case outcomes. During arbitration proceedings, which often span many months, the tribunal is expected to process and retain substantial amounts of information. This is where confirmation, anchoring and recency biases, which all relate to our memory, can heavily affect how tribunal members interpret information and ultimately reach their final decision on a matter. Confirmation bias can lead to individuals favouring, interpreting, and remembering information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs. Anchoring bias causes an individual to rely too heavily on the first pieces of information they process (ie. the ‘anchor’) which influences how they process all information that follows. This can cause them to make errors in any subsequent judgements by relying too heavily on the original ‘anchor’. Recency bias relates to individuals recalling recent events more easily and vividly, which causes them to have a greater influence over their decisions than events occurring earlier in the past.

Cognitive Biases in Practice

Due to his background as both an advocate and arbitrator, Toby Landau KC explained how the above-mentioned biases manifest themselves in the context of international arbitration proceedings. Arbitrations based on the adversarial model of adjudication, often associated with common law jurisdictions, prove particularly susceptible to cognitive biases. This is based on the assumption that the tribunal is unprepared; and hence, requires an extensive presentation of all of the facts about a case by the parties. In practice, this leads to an ‘information overload’ which the tribunal is expected to digest, analyse, and translate into a fair outcome. Many rely on creating a map of the case with ‘anchor points’ which aid in their comprehension of the information they are met with. In Toby Landau KC’s experience, it is usually at this initial stage of proceedings that the fate of a case may be determined. The ‘anchor points’ set by the tribunal within their case map influence how they perceive and analyse certain evidence and information. When individuals have a preconceived image of a case in mind, they are more likely to accept information which confirms their initial view. This occurs because the anchors set at the beginning of the proceedings shape their perspective of the case going forward. Consequently, they may become less inclined to revise or ‘remap’ their case understanding.

The tribunal’s decision-making may be particularly affected by cognitive biases at the stage of the post-hearing brief. Often occurring at a much later point in time to the initial proceedings, the tribunal’s memory of the case and its facts will naturally subside. At this stage, the tribunal most likely would refer back to the ‘anchor points’ they set initially, highlighting the importance of mental anchoring and adjustment (MAO). This increases the risk of their decision-making being affected by confirmation bias and other cognitive biases related to memory.

Another interesting point brought up by the panel was whether the ultimate goal of the legal profession should be to entirely eliminate cognitive biases. Myfanwy (Miffy) Wood highlighted that arbitral proceedings represent a process that both parties willingly enter and consent to. Depending on which parties you ask, some may view arbitration as a more reliable dispute resolution method, as opposed to litigating in front of domestic courts. Given the increasing awareness of how cognitive biases influence humans’ decision-making, other parties may choose to use this fact to their advantage; whether during the arbitrator selection process or main proceedings.

AI To The Rescue?

This leads us to an important question: (How) should AI technology be used to help legal professionals manage information overload? Is there a risk that using AI in this context could exploit existing human limitations, especially when it comes to setting the right ‘anchor points’? Would AI increase the risks related to cognitive biases?

Drawing on his background as both an advocate and founder of the LegalTech analysis and reasoning tool ‘Associo’, David Blayney KC illustrated how the concept of ‘decision hygiene’ should guide the development of AI solutions within this context. The awareness of biases, in combination with structured decision-making, which takes into account diverse perspectives, is integral to reducing the negative effect of cognitive biases. One practical adoption of AI tools could be the production of a visual, rather than written, map which sets out all disputed points in a case. This could aid arbitrators in analysing complex information and may reduce their reliance on mental shortcuts to synthesise the information in question. Opting for visual tools, rather than solely relying on written submissions, can help with reconciling each party’s submissions more effectively. Decision trees may also be an effective aid in this context. By breaking down a complex case into manageable parts, decision trees help visualise different potential outcomes and thereby allow the quantification of risk attributed to different points in an analytical manner. This may be particularly useful relating to overconfidence and confirmation bias.

As AI technology advances, we may find ourselves at a point in the future where, e.g. in relation to costs, parties may be increasingly scrutinised as to the reasons for not utilising technology to aid legal proceedings and decision-making. Ultimately, this illustrates the importance of transparency regarding the (non)use of AI technology, as this will have an influence on public trust in legal proceedings going forward.

Concluding Thoughts

Rounding off this exciting discussion, the panel collectively agreed that the ultimate focus of future AI solutions should be on aiding and supporting, rather than replacing, human decision-making. Nevertheless, there remain significant practical issues, notably relating to how an AI system is trained, which may influence the efficacy and legitimacy of adopting AI technology in its current form within international arbitration proceedings.

AI in the Afternoon: Practical Lessons in Adoption

The “AI in the Afternoon” event, part of London International Disputes Week, brought together experts from Simmons & Simmons, Therme Group, and TrialView to discuss the practicalities of AI adoption in law firms. The discussions focused on AI’s transformative potential, practical strategies for implementation, and strategies for its adoption.

1. Current AI Tools for Legal Practice

• Custom LLMs: Law firms are implementing large language models (LLMs), and examining how to use them for legal tasks, implementing them in ways with more control and security compared to publicly available AI tools like ChatGPT. These internal implementations of these models are designed to address the specific needs of legal professionals, ensuring appropriate use and confidentiality.
• Integrated AI in Existing Software: AI functionalities are being incorporated into widely used tools like Microsoft Office (using Copilot), enhancing efficiency in tasks such as email drafting, generating starting points for documents in word or presentations in powerpoint, translations, search and data analysis.
• Generative AI for Research: Legal knowledge providers are integrating AI to streamline research processes, allowing lawyers to generate comprehensive and grounded responses to prompts and to produce initial drafts of legal documents quickly.
• Specialised AI Applications: AI is increasingly utilised in specialist areas such as e-Discovery and document management, significantly reducing the time required for reviewing and organizing large volumes of documents.

2. Practical Applications of AI in Legal Work

• Summarisation: AI tools can generate first drafts of document summaries, aiding lawyers in quickly understanding and conveying complex information to clients.
• Data Extraction: AI can be used to extract key information from long documents, and produce it in useful formats (e.g. chronologies, dramatis personae).
• Content Evaluation: AI assists in comparing and analysing semantic differences between legal documents, such as witness statements, and identifying inconsistencies or areas of concern.
• Document Management: Advanced AI applications facilitate efficient management and retrieval of information from large datasets, using natural language queries to provide answers more quickly, and with references cited where techniques like Retrieval Augmented Generation are used.

3. Security and Confidentiality Concerns

A major focus of the discussion was on the importance of maintaining security and confidentiality when using AI in legal contexts. Custom implementations solutions are essential to ensure that sensitive legal data is handled appropriately, mitigating many of the risks associated with general AI tools.

4. AI Adoption Strategies

Adopting AI in legal practice requires a strategic approach. Law firms must:

• Start with AI Literacy: progress and sensible decisions will only be possible with a good level of understanding of how the technology works, the risks and available mitigations
• Define Clear Objectives: Identify specific goals and challenges that AI can address before implementation.
• Leverage Existing Knowledge: Apply lessons from past technology adoptions to streamline AI integration.
• Balance Innovation and Caution: Avoid rushing into AI adoption without thorough planning and understanding of its implications.

5. Implications of AI Adoption

The potential impacts of AI on legal practice are significant:

• Pricing Models: As AI automates more tasks, clients may come to expect outcome-based pricing models, and law firms may need to find ways to recover technology investment costs. The billable hour was justifiable when it was hard otherwise to find a basis for charging and measure the work done but now pricing for legal services will have to evolve.
• Skill Sets: New expertise will be required, both by upskilling existing lawyers and hiring new talent with relevant skills.
• Risk Appetite: Firms must balance cost efficiencies with risk management, aligning client expectations with realistic service delivery.
• Market Differentiation: Larger firms may benefit from scale in investing in AI, while smaller firms might leverage agility for faster adoption. Firms with deep knowledge assets could create barriers to entry for others, solidifying client relationships.
• Competitive Edge: The knowledge of ‘the law’ is already an assumed baseline. Quality of service, encompassing speed, efficiency, and commercial awareness, will drive competition.

6. Skills and Team Structure for Effective AI Use

Successful AI adoption depends on multidisciplinary teams that combine legal expertise with technological proficiency. Essential skills include:

• Technical Literacy: Basic understanding of AI tools and their applications in legal work.
• Data Science Knowledge: Ability to analyse and interpret data generated by AI tools.
• Project Management: Effective coordination and management of AI projects to ensure they meet legal and business objectives.

Speakers included: Emily Monastiriotis, Jonathan Schuman, Stephen Dowling, Nicholas Cranfield and Eimear McCann

With thanks to Simmons and Simmons, who drafted this post, and who kindly granted us permission to share. The original post can be found here.

User-friendly design is at the heart of TrialView’s philosophy for simplifying complex tasks without compromising on functionality. Today’s fast-paced legal landscape benefits from legal tech which enables efficiency and ease of use in streamlining workflows and facilitating seamless collaboration. At TrialView, we understand the challenges that litigators face, which is why usability is at the forefront of TrialView’s user interface. We prioritise effortless navigation of the platform to enable seamless collaboration with colleagues, as well as efficiency in trial preparation, document and case management. Our smart pagination tools, as well as date and timeline recognition functionalities are meticulously crafted to assist litigators in simplifying processes such as evidence presentation and organising complex bundles for hearings.

Understanding User-friendly design thinking

User-friendly design thinking is centred around the digital experience of the users which pervades our product development. As litigators, we have experienced the pain points of trial preparation, which informs TrialView’s adoption of an intuitive interface. From flexible document upload, through to presenting evidence, our primary focus is on ease of use. Thereby, reducing the amount of time and resources spent on administrative tasks and allowing litigators to focus on more complex aspects of their cases and thrive at what they do best.

What makes TrialView’s platform so user-friendly?

Collaborative Features
Collaboration is essential in the legal profession, particularly with the recent digitisation of legal processes such as the advent of online courts. TrialView facilitates seamless collaboration among professionals and teams with our secure and cohesive workspaces, facilitating coordination in real-time.

Streamlined workflows
We understand that time is of the essence in litigation. This is why TrialView aids streamlined workflows through our easy-to-use document generation functionalities, customisable templates to expedite document preparation, processing and case management. No extra time spent on navigating our platform or guessing what goes where!

Continuous improvement
At TrialView, we are committed to continuously improving our platform based on user feedback and evolving industry trends. By actively listening to our users and implementing their suggestions, we ensure that TrialView remains a valuable cutting-edge solution for litigators.

TrialView’s user-friendly design approach lies at the heart of TrialView’s mission to revolutionise litigation efficiency. By prioritizing usability and collaboration, we empower litigators to work more efficiently and effectively, ultimately delivering better results for their clients. This is also what sets us apart in the legal tech industry.

Find out more by requesting a demo – experience the power of TrialView today.

A blog post by TrialView intern, Fatima Sanusi.

We’re delighted to sponsor London International Disputes Week 2024.

Why not join us for one of our Member Events, as we partner with Serle Court, Simmons & Simmons and Quinn Emanuel.