COURTGPT: USAGE OF AI IN LAW

INTRODUCTION:

The law is dynamic as it changes with the changes in society. This principle applies not only to the Constitution but also to the technological development of courtrooms. Looking back to the 1970s, there was immense criticism over the introduction of computerised typewriting. And now, it is AI. The questions we face today are: what will be the future of AI in law, and what will be the future of this generation of advocates without AI? These two questions may seem simple, yet they carry a profound impact on the future of law.

AI-AN INVISIBLE HAND:

It saves time of advocates by doing mechanical tasks in law, which results in reducing manpower expenses, saving time, and cutting down delays. According to a research paper by Thomson Reuters, 72% of the legal profession believes AI as a force good for their profession. And also, the survey says it saves 240 hours of the lawyers. AI is the third hand for our humans, which reduces the burden. And now there are AI advocates, through which we can get legal assistance, information or knowledge through the internet. There will be fewer expenses, and it can be done just by logging into the website or app. The work can be completed simply by sitting in your room. But will AI advocates be as relevant as human advocates? The answer is NO.

LIABILITY OF AI:

 The AI is so useful until we understand it just a set of data driven algorithms. A New York lawyer who used ChatGPT for legal research in the case Mata v. Avianca ended up facing a court hearing of his own. The legal brief contained citations to 6 non-existent court cases, including the case of Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, which lawyers admitted were generated by ChatGPT. And to support this, just imagine an AI handling a divorce case. It will just ask problems of the former spouse and argue based on the provision (it can be a generated one too), but it will never consider the psychology of the former spouse. And note that, the AI analytical thinking skill is limited by 3%. One of the drawbacks of over – dependence on AI is the loss of human insights.

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS:

AI is an open source, and the chats can be hacked or even disclosed by the company under certain circumstances. These practices directly infringe Article 19, Article 21, and Article 14 (the golden triangle rights) of the Indian Constitution. By relying on AI instead of human advocates, the nuances of justice, fairness, and individual privacy are lost. Consequently, our fundamental rights are threatened when AI replaces courts and human advocates.

CONCLUSION:

AI is created by man to reduce work, not to be relied on fully. A true advocate is never the one who files bundles of documents but the one who grasps the client’s psychology and delivers arguments with clarity and precision. AI may assist in mechanical tasks, yet only within strict limits, and must never stand as advocates in court.

Reference:

• BloombergLaw0{link}

• BBC{link}

• Richmond journal & law technology{link}

• Thomson Reuters{link}