The legal profession is undergoing a significant transformation due to the advent of generative AI and other AI technologies. In a year-end report, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this shift, highlighting both the promises and challenges AI brings to the legal field. He emphasized the need for “caution and humility” as this technology reshapes the work of judges and lawyers.
“I predict that human judges will be around for a while,” Roberts wrote. “But with equal confidence I predict that judicial work — particularly at the trial level — will be significantly affected by AI.”
In his 13-page report, Chief Justice Roberts conveyed a nuanced view of AI’s role in the legal sector. He acknowledged AI’s potential to expand access to justice, particularly for those with limited resources, and its ability to revolutionize legal research. AI could also enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of courts in case resolution. However, he also raised concerns about privacy issues and the technology’s current limitations, particularly its inability to replicate the nuanced discretion that human judgment provides.
Chief Justice Roberts’s commentary marks a significant exploration of AI’s impact on law. This discussion is timely, considering several lower courts are grappling with how to adapt to new technologies like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. These AI tools, capable of passing bar exams, are also known for creating fictitious content or “hallucinations.”
Highlighting the risks, Roberts pointed out instances where AI-generated hallucinations led lawyers to mistakenly cite non-existent cases in legal documents, an error that garnered considerable attention this year. For example, Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer, inadvertently included fake case citations from an AI program in a court filing.
The legal community is beginning to respond to these challenges. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans recently proposed a rule — a first among the 13 U.S. appeals courts — to regulate the use of generative AI tools by lawyers. This rule would require attorneys to certify that they either did not use AI to draft briefs or that any AI-generated text was reviewed for accuracy before being included in court filings. This development underscores the evolving landscape of legal practice in the age of artificial intelligence.
