The Ethical AI Lawyer: What is Required of Lawyers When They Use Automated Systems?

Abstract

This article focuses on individual lawyers’ responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in their practice. More specifically, it examines the ways in which a lawyer’s ethical capabilities and motivations are tested by the rapid growth of automated systems, both to identify the ethical risks posed by AI tools in legal services, and to uncover what is required of lawyers when they use this technology. To do so, we use psychologist James Rest’s Four-component Model of Morality (FCM), which represents the necessary elements for lawyers to engage in professional conduct when utilising AI. We examine issues associated with automation that most seriously challenge each component in context, as well as the skills and resolve lawyers need to adhere to their ethical duties. Importantly, this approach is grounded in social psychology. That is, by looking at human ‘thinking and doing’ (i.e., lawyers’ motivations and capacity when using AI), this offers a different, complementary perspective to the typical, legislative approach in which the law is analysed for regulatory gaps.

Regulating professionals in virtual practice: Protecting the public interest in rapidly changing digital workplaces

“…In law, the professional model of practice has shifted away from the lawyer as expert ascendant over the client to a consumer-focused orientation, and developments in legal technology are being driven by clients' demands for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. (39) In health care, this is similar, with the OECD noting that societies across the globe are going digital and health care consumers are increasingly expecting the same level of responsiveness and ease of use in health care as in other digital technologies. (48) The extent to which the intent of professional regulation is fulfilling its mandate to act in the public interest as it pertains to virtual practice was questioned in the literature.…”

“…) managing ethical issues in virtual care provision, and (for legal professionals) the ambit of the duty of technological competence. Regulators have an important role in providing guidance on how the duties provided in professional codes of ethics (such as, for lawyers, independence, integrity, and the exercise of professional judgment) intersect in relation to specific technologies (39). Recognizing this, umbrella regulatory consortiums have offered guidance, model codes, and support for memorandums or agreements for virtual care practice standards.…”

Review of the Applicability of Advocate Immunity Rights in Indonesia

“…Besides, Artificial Intelligence is also used as a lawyer's tactic in dealing with the law of events when the case is unclear in terms of its jurisdictional facts. It allows the right of immunity to be exercised (Rogers & Bell, 2019). Australia has used its technological capabilities to assist its lawyer's duties in both deposition issues, Artificial Intelligence to analyze cases under consideration, and other administrative needs.…”

Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on the Legal Fraternity

“…Lawyers have an ethical responsibility to ensure competence and diligence (Nunez, 2017). This may indicate an added responsibility placed on lawyers to understand the logic used by AI and the capabilities and limitations of AI systems (Rogers & Bell, 2019;Scherer, 2015). However, it is a major challenge for lawyers to understand the intricacies of a particular AI being used as lawyers are not known to be legal technologist (Susskind, 2017).…”

“…However, there are certain areas of law where AI will not be able to entirely replace human lawyers. This is especially in criminal and family law practice where human interaction is considered a vital aspect in legal work (Rogers & Bell, 2019). In addition, currently AI is not able to provide oral representation for clients in courts.…”