Artificial Intelligence Review 2023 For The Legal Field
2023 is going to be remembered as the birth of Artificial Intelligence. According to news sources, it will be able to reduce workloads, reduce staffing, and resolve complex problems. Only time will tell how good AI can get. The whole concept is that it will never stop improving.
One major application for AI will be the legal field. The ability to comb vast amounts of cases will no doubt help attorneys develop better legal strategies and reduce the amount of waste in legal research in the long run. But will it be able to replace an attorney? That is an interesting question.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS FOR FUN. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT RELY ON IT. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AI. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY WITH YOUR LEGAL QUESTION.
It is a well-known fact that the majority of cases are won outside of the courtroom through pre-trial litigation. Very few cases actually make it to trial. If ChatGPT, Bard, or any other platform can develop legal theory, cite cases, and write court documents, can it outperform an attorney during the pre-trial phase? If the assertion is that AI can learn at an exponential rate and tell fact from fiction, then my assertion is that at some point it will eliminate the need for attorneys in a vast majority of cases.
Further, is it possible that ChatGPT or another AI based platform could act as an artificial arbitrator? I say yes. If AI can determine the applicable legal theory and apply submitted facts to that theory, then it should be able to determine a likely outcome. Now that is interesting. Not only could it eliminate the need for most lawyers during the preliminary phases of litigation, but it could also theoretically reduce the need for judges for disputes capable of being settled via written statements.
What about non-litigation? If AI can write a court brief, then I would think it would be able to write a contract.
But before everyone gets excited, I think we are years away from AI playing a major role in the legal field. Why? Because AI is limited by its ability to sort good data from bad data. AI’s biggest strength and biggest weakness is its ability to crawl a vast load of data and develop a result. The phrase “garbage in, garbage out” will define how fast AI can grow. In short, I think that the ability to digest the tone of a case, to draw complex interferences, assign weight to cases, and evaluate credibility will be the largest obstacles for AI to overcome to become a dominant player legal field. But if it does it, I guess I may be out of a job.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS FOR FUN. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT RELY ON IT. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AI. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY WITH YOUR LEGAL QUESTION.
So how good is AI in 2023? Let’s find out. There are multiple ways to evaluate a system. AI is particularly difficult because the process is still a bit of a mystery. Big AI players are not running to release their trade secrets about how their products work. For a normal system, you can develop its credibility by taking a predefined data set, developing your own set of results, and comparing the system’s outputs. We cannot do that here because we do not know what data set is at play and we do not know the parameters of each system’s inner workings. Further, true AI is constantly updating those unknowns. So, the best we can do at this moment in time is to ask the system a question and comment on the answers. If you have another suggestion, email me and I will take it into consideration while writing my next little opinion piece.
Question 1: What are the elements of breach of contract in Colorado?
Degree Of Difficulty: Medium. This is a difficult question because it requires the system to limit its data draw to specific cases and return a result. But, this is a very common legal topic with multiple legal articles floating around on the internet.
Expectations: For this question, I would expect the system to pull a cite from the Diodosio case which is a Colorado Supreme Court case covering the topic. The case has been around for 20+ years and is cited in multiple legal authorities. This case is the bread and butter for breach of contract cases in Colorado.
Bard Result:
“The elements of breach of contract in Colorado are:
The existence of a contract. This means that there must be an agreement between two or more parties, which is supported by consideration. Consideration is something of value that each party gives to the other.
Performance by the plaintiff or some justification for nonperformance. This means that the plaintiff must have either performed their obligations under the contract or have had a valid reason for not performing.
Failure to perform the contract by the defendant. This means that the defendant must have failed to perform their obligations under the contract.
Resulting damages to the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must have suffered some financial or other loss as a result of the defendant's breach.
If the plaintiff can prove all of these elements, then they will be successful in a breach of contract lawsuit.
The remedies available for breach of contract in Colorado include:
Contract damages: This is the most common remedy and is intended to put the plaintiff in the same financial position they would have been in if the contract had been performed.
Specific performance: This remedy requires the defendant to perform their obligations under the contract. This is only available in limited circumstances, such as when damages would be an inadequate remedy.
Rescission: This remedy allows the plaintiff to cancel the contract and return the parties to their original positions.
Restitution: This remedy requires the defendant to return any benefits they received under the contract.
It is important to note that these are just some of the possible remedies for breach of contract in Colorado. The specific remedy that is available will depend on the facts of the case.
If you believe that you have been the victim of a breach of contract, you should consult with an attorney to discuss your legal options.”
Comment: Overall it was not a bad answer. While it did not provide a specific cite or an exact quote from the case, it covered many aspects of the Diodosio case. It is not 100% perfect but not bad. I would have preferred if the system limited its answer a tad. The system appears to be trying to provide more information than the question is asking, including remedies and describing the elements of a contract. I think this creates a bit of a risk for misstatements since there is much more to the individual pieces. But overall, not bad for the 1st test. I was pleasantly surprised.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS FOR FUN. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT RELY ON IT. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AI. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY WITH YOUR LEGAL QUESTION.
Chat GPT Result:
“I can provide you with a general overview of the elements of a breach of contract in Colorado based on common legal principles. However, please note that I am not a lawyer, and for specific legal advice or information, you should consult a qualified attorney or legal resource.
In Colorado, a breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill its obligations as outlined in a valid and enforceable contract. To establish a claim for breach of contract, the following elements typically need to be proven:
1. **Valid Contract**: There must be a valid and enforceable contract between the parties. This means that there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration (something of value exchanged), and an intention to create legal relations.
2. **Breach of the Contractual Obligation**: One party must have failed to perform a duty or obligation as stated in the contract. This breach can be a failure to do something that was required or the performance of something that was prohibited by the contract terms.
3. **Materiality**: The breach must be material, meaning it must be significant enough to affect the essence of the contract and the parties' expectations. Minor or inconsequential breaches may not be sufficient to establish a breach of contract claim.
4. **Notice**: The non-breaching party typically needs to provide notice to the breaching party about the alleged breach. This allows the breaching party an opportunity to remedy the breach within a reasonable timeframe.
5. **Damages**: The non-breaching party must have suffered actual damages as a result of the breach. Damages can be financial losses, lost opportunities, or other measurable harm.
6. **Causation**: The breach of contract must be the direct cause of the damages suffered by the non-breaching party. In other words, the damages must have resulted from the breach and not from other unrelated factors.
It's important to note that Colorado law recognizes both written and oral contracts, although proving the terms of an oral contract can be more challenging. Additionally, statutes of limitations apply, meaning there's a specific timeframe within which a breach of contract claim must be filed.
If you believe you have a breach of contract situation in Colorado, it's recommended that you consult with a qualified attorney who can provide you with specific legal advice tailored to your situation.”
Comment: Overall it was not a bad answer. I actually like certain elements of this answer better than the other AI’s answer but there is a problem. It missed the substantial performance element which is essential. In addition, it added a notice and causation requirement. While not bad because it actually makes sense it does confuse multiple legal topics. Again, I think the system is overreaching and needs to limit its answer.
Overall Result From the 1st Test: While neither answer was perfect, they were both not bad. I would think both of them would get some points on a law exam. I would be extremely curious to know which parameters each system used to evaluate this question. But the fact that each system came up with a viable answer is amazing.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS FOR FUN. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT RELY ON IT. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AI. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY WITH YOUR LEGAL QUESTION.
Let’s do 1 more.
Question 2: What is hearsay?
Degree Of Difficulty: Low-Medium. This should be a bit easier since the federal hearsay rule matches many of the state hearsay rules. Hearsay is a heavily tested law school topic.
Expectations: For this question, I would expect an answer directly from the federal rules of civil procedure. In the alternative, an answer may look like this. Hearsay is an out of court statement presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted by a person and/or declarant. In short, we do not want he said/ she said unless certain thresholds are met.
Bard Result:
“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, it is a statement that is made by someone other than the witness who is testifying, and it is offered as evidence to prove that the statement is true.
For example, if a witness testifies that they heard someone else say that the defendant was at the scene of a crime, this would be hearsay. The witness did not see the defendant at the scene of the crime, and they are not offering their own personal knowledge of the matter. They are simply repeating what someone else said.
Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court because it is unreliable. The person who made the out-of-court statement is not available to be cross-examined, so the truthfulness of the statement cannot be tested.
However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Some of the most common exceptions include:
Excited utterance: This exception applies to statements that are made by a person who is under the stress of a startling event. The theory is that such statements are likely to be truthful because the person is not likely to have the time or inclination to lie.
Present sense impression: This exception applies to statements that describe an event that is happening at the time the statement is made. The theory is that such statements are likely to be accurate because the person is describing what they are actually seeing or hearing.
Business records: This exception applies to records that are kept in the ordinary course of business. The theory is that such records are reliable because they are made by people who have a duty to be accurate.
If you are involved in a legal case, it is important to be aware of the hearsay rule. If you are offered hearsay evidence, you should consult with an attorney to discuss whether the evidence is admissible.”
Comment: This was not a bad answer. Again, while not perfect it provides enough information to get a strong feel for the topic. Very cool. I wish I had this tool available to me in law school. But again, I would note that the system is overreaching by too much related information which increases the risk of inaccurate information. Particularly, the rules surrounding hearsay exceptions are very complex. This mentioned them but did not give them justice.
ChatGPT result:
“Hearsay is a legal term that refers to an out-of-court statement, whether spoken or written, that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. In simpler terms, hearsay is when someone presents a statement made by another person outside of the current legal proceeding as evidence to support their case.
Hearsay is generally considered unreliable in court because the person who made the original statement is not present to be cross-examined and subjected to questioning. As a result, it can be difficult to assess the accuracy, credibility, and context of the statement.
To give you an example: Let's say in a trial, Party A is trying to prove that Event X occurred. Party A wants to introduce a statement made by Person B to prove that Event X did happen. If Party A is using Person B's statement to directly prove the truth of Event X (i.e., that Event X did indeed occur), and Person B is not available for cross-examination, then this statement would likely be considered hearsay.
However, there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule, where certain types of out-of-court statements might be allowed into evidence even though they would typically be considered hearsay. Some common exceptions include:
Statements made under oath: Statements made in a deposition, a prior trial, or another official legal proceeding where the person making the statement was under oath and subject to cross-examination.
Dying declarations: Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die, which may be admissible in cases involving homicide or similar circumstances.
Excited utterances: Statements made spontaneously in reaction to a startling event, which may be considered reliable due to the lack of time for the declarant to fabricate or distort the statement.
Business records: Statements made in the ordinary course of business, such as records of transactions, invoices, or medical records.
Prior consistent or inconsistent statements: Statements made by a witness that either support their credibility (consistent) or challenge it (inconsistent).
Admissions by a party opponent: Statements made by a party to the case that are against their own interest and can be admitted as evidence against them.
It's important to note that the rules regarding hearsay can vary by jurisdiction and may have specific nuances. If you're dealing with legal matters involving evidence, it's advisable to consult with a qualified attorney who can provide guidance tailored to your situation and the relevant laws in your jurisdiction.”
Comment: Again, not a bad answer. Very cool. I would use either system in law school to develop a rudimentary understanding of the subject. But again, I would note that the system is overreaching by providing information related to the topic which increases the risk of inaccurate information. For example, in many jurisdictions, an adverse party statement is not hearsay. The small details count. But wow this was good.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS FOR FUN. IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. DO NOT RELY ON IT. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AI. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY WITH YOUR LEGAL QUESTION.
In conclusion, I am excited to see where AI goes in the legal field. I think AI as of 2023, is at the level of a student that has taken the LSAT and is getting ready to enter law school. A lot of improvement needs to be made. I’m no out of a job yet. But overall, I am pleasantly surprised. I am definitely going to incorporate AI into my legal research phase for my cases as a potential primer when looking into new topics.
AS ALWAYS, IF YOU NEED LEGAL HELP, I OFFER FREE 30-MINUTE CASE EVALUATIONS. PLEASE REACH OUT.