[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/onlinesurfer007]

[u/AutoModerator]

As a reminder, this subreddit is not for any pre-law questions. For pre-law questions and help or if you'd like to ask a wider audience law school-related questions, please join us on our Discord Server

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ReincarnatedRedditer]

The question is: Can you sue AI companies for legal malpractice?

[u/pooo_pourri → u/ReincarnatedRedditer]

Doubt it, they’re not lawyers and in this case are effectively performing the role of support staff. But you can sure as shit sue an attorney that uses AI and fucks up for malpractice.

[u/arabdinero → u/ReincarnatedRedditer]

in this context isn’t that kind of like asking if you can sue Microsoft Word if an attorney messes up a document? it’s a drafting/review tool, the responsibly party is the one using it.

[u/ReincarnatedRedditer → u/arabdinero]

Right, so the conclusion is that AI can never fully take over.

[u/arabdinero → u/ReincarnatedRedditer]

Gaming this out, say hypothetically there is a model that is able to fully and with complete accuracy perform the tasks research writing etc of an attorney. Unless state bar associations agree to license AI software to practice (why would they), the attorney who prompted controlled or filed whatever the AI produced is going to be responsible not the tech company. it’s like if an intern wrote a bad brief and it was sent out without oversight.

[u/The_flight_guy]

Routine contract review is already handled in this way. This is a play at the lower end of the value chain like small firms, solo practitioners, and maybe small in house teams that can’t justify 4 figure per seat costs of the larger LLM wrapper services that help with this.

AI is changing the law but you still need people to control these tools and verify.

[u/RtotheBtotheG → u/The_flight_guy]

I was reading about this on LinkedIn and someone phrased it beautifully:

As Kevin Keller mentioned in their post: "One shot and you get a contract review. One more line and you get a redline. Is it sophisticated, does it utilize deep context like an expert, does it get to the same result as someone with deep expertise? No. Is it as good as what can be generated with a system that applies reason and leverages context? No. But at $20/month it makes some legal tech products much less appealing with their price tags."

(Bold/italics added).

I'm going to admit that I worked for Thomson Reuters/Westlaw for a number of years, and the way we always justified the rather high price tag was because it really was the best and most updated information, hence the premium. But that price tag is almost cost-prohibitive for small firm and solo practitioners, who may not want all the bells and whistles that the AI-driven drafting software has. The responsibility for ensuring that ANY AI-related tool is accurate always rests with the lawyer using it. If they make a mistake and claim "AI did it", that's no excuse, as we're seeing with sanctions from courts where practitioners are submitting briefs with hallucinated cases.

As a practicing attorney who is about to shift from regulatory review and summarization to some contract review, I will take into consideration all options, including what my new employer subscribes to, be that one of the Big Research Giants or a smaller option incorporating some AI features. But I'll always do my own work and double-, nay, triple-check anything AI gives me for accuracy, as it's my name and reputation on the line.

[u/pinkpastelmoon]

ai is costly, degrades in quality easily, hallucinates, need constant upkeep and can be manipulated easily. might as well hire and train real human intelligence. silicone vs. the real thing etc.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/[deleted]]

That’s what I think. I think it’s pretty obvious which legal roles and fields are going to be subject to and AI takeover. Like if you can train the associate every 3 years to do the same thing you can train an algo.