The legal process is being impacted by the increasing presence of AI in the courtroom.

• The use of AI in the U.S. legal industry is becoming increasingly prominent in the courtroom.
• In trial preparation, AI is involved in various tasks such as research, writing, jury exhibits, office administration, trial summaries, and translations.
• AI's legal work should be reviewed by humans in all applications, according to experts.

While the Center for Strategic and International Studies describes China's use of automated, digitized court proceedings as a "smart court," experts say that the U.S. is not quite there yet. However, these predictions are not entirely incorrect.

Wayne Cohen, managing partner at Cohen & Cohen and a law professor at the George Washington University School of Law, stated that AI is significantly impacting the legal industry in all areas.

The use of AI in the U.S. legal industry is becoming increasingly visible in the courtroom.

In trial preparation, AI is involved in various tasks such as research, writing, jury exhibits, office administration, trial summaries, and translations, as stated by Cohen.

"The resolution of cases from the time a lawsuit is filed will become quicker," Cohen stated.

Judges can make informed judgments with the help of AI-generated searchable PDF transcriptions from audio recordings. AI can flag contradictions, which can either bolster or hinder the credibility of the prosecution or defense. When judges make rulings, they can do it with a lot of accuracy, and it's supported by the evidence that they heard in their courtroom, as Jackie Schafer, a former assistant attorney general for the state of Washington, stated.

In 2020, Clearbrief was founded by Schafer, utilizing AI technology to scan documents, identify citations, and create hyperlinked chronological timelines for quick reference.

Ironclad CEO and co-founder Jason Boehmig, a corporate attorney with experience, stated that AI can analyze a company's legal contracts, comprehend its preferred language, and draft and negotiate contracts in the organization's historic legal tone.

Boehmig stated that business contracts are at the forefront of legal innovation, as it is an area where they can afford to experiment. On the spectrum of the legal system, businesses on either end of the contract arguably have less to lose than individuals whose basic freedoms are at stake.

The legal industry is not the only one where experts recommend keeping humans in the loop when it comes to AI's work. However, the potential consequences of the justice system make human oversight even more crucial.

Can AI reduce bias and costs in the legal system?

The primary concerns in considering the use of AI in the legal system are the enhancement of access to justice and the preservation of due process.

Boehmig stated that most people who require legal services are unable to obtain them.

Cohen stated that AI is equalizing opportunities for lawyers by providing them with assistance at a lower cost compared to hiring human capital.

Some experts hold an optimistic perspective on the idea that legal representation will share their savings with their clients.

A more affordable representation could pose a greater threat in the courtroom, as Cohen stated, "When an individual sues a corporation, the corporation typically has better access to better lawyers, more resources, and better support. This can tip the scales."

Schafer observes that pro se litigants can leverage AI technology to enhance their professionalism before judges and juries, despite lacking legal training.

The perils of inserting AI into the legal process

The need for an "AI sandwich," as Cohen suggests, arises from the expectation of due process, which makes accuracy with AI a crucial issue.

In June, a New York case involving Mata v. Avianca saw lawyers submit fake quotes and citations created by ChatGPT. The attorneys were penalized for their actions, and the legal industry received a clear message that manipulating AI in this manner is unacceptable. Cohen stated, "In the end, it's the lawyer's license that is at stake."

While U.S. laws are intricately layered with local, state, and federal requirements, AI's capabilities are limited in the near term. Schafer predicts that small-time traffic tickets with digital evidence can be automated, but anything that demands critical human judgment cannot be accomplished by AI.

Although AI has the potential to increase access to justice for marginalized groups, it also has the capacity to introduce new bias or amplify existing bias. For instance, AI-generated defense or prosecutorial summaries can pose risks if the person reading them does not comprehend what follow-up questions to ask or where information gaps may be. According to Boehmig, it is a bad idea to include a summary without the proper context around it.

Boehmig believes that the legal industry is slow to adopt AI technology because it is logical and practical for the law to be slow on matters of justice. He believes that when someone's freedom is at risk, it is important to have a human involved for a long time.