At the end of February this year, Canada saw its first AI “hallucination” case, where an artificial-intelligence-powered tool generated a citation to non-existent case law, and that citation was submitted to a court. This incident sparked some conversations about the place of technology in law.
I am a strong advocate for technology in law because our current practice has benefitted much from technological advancement. Technology allows our practice to be more efficient, and thus more cost-effective for our clients. I was told that legal research used to be wading through shelves of hard copies. By comparison, today, the computer-powered, searchable legal databases allow us to quickly locate precedents and even pinpoint discussions of nuanced issues. I am sure that “ctrl + F” combination is a good friend of many colleagues.
Technology also promotes access to justice. For example, in the past, geographic location could be a barrier for participation in legal proceedings, because not everyone can afford to travel. Today, with virtual hearing arrangements, such cost can be reduced or even removed. Further, software supporting virtual hearing arrangements usually come with, or allow plug-ins of, text-to-speech/speech-to-text functions. Those functions can help address communication challenges and make courts more accessible.
As helpful as it can be, technology is not perfect. However, I would like to think that the problems do not come with technology itself, but with its usage. As with any other tool we wield, knowing how technology works and where its limits lie is important. Indeed, lawyers are now required to develop technological competence as per the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
Please log in to read the full article.