Most media outlets, both within and outside the legal industry, have discussed advances in AI technology in the several months since the rollout of ChatGPT. A few months ago, I also published an article about ChatGPT and how this application can already be a valuable tool for many types of lawyers. Recently, I was listening to a podcast that discussed how someone used AI technology to create a completely original song that was modeled on two popular musical artists, and the voices in the song even sounded like these artists. I was floored by this advance in technology, and the podcast got me thinking: could advances in technology soon permit AI to argue matters in court if this was permissible?
People have been opining about how technology might be better than real-life lawyers for decades. I am probably the only person who recently watched every episode of “The Paper Chase” television series, and I remember an episode where a group of computer nerds try to show that a computer knows more about the law than the infamous Professor Kingsfield. Although lawyers think that their expertise is unique and cannot be replicated by technology, at least some aspects of lawyering, even those that require oral advocacy, can possibly be replaced by technology.
For instance, I have orally argued numerous routine and typical matters in my career when one party was trying to argue the general rule and the other party was trying to argue the exception to the rule. This includes people arguing for additional depositions, trying to get purportedly duplicative causes of action dismissed, and other matters. When arguing these types of matters, parties just convey the same rote arguments that they made for prior similar matters in the past.
While at oral argument recently on a routine matter, I looked around the courtroom and wondered whether technology could replace the work of the lawyers in the near future. All of the questions from the court could be easily answered by references to the cases, and each side made predictable arguments. In this type of situation, it is very unlikely that the court would throw a curveball to mess the parties up, and it seems that artificial intelligence might soon be able to make arguments and field basic questions by a judge with ease.
Advances in artificial intelligence technology also make it feel as if AI will soon be able to take depositions and perform other legal tasks. Lawyers often rely on deposition outlines themselves when taking depositions. When I was working as a mass torts lawyer, I typically had deposition outlines that were dozens, if not hundreds, of pages long that I would consult almost verbatim at the depositions. Usually, there was not much deviation from the “script,” and the deponents did not try to wiggle out of answering questions too much. I remember a co-defendant’s counsel remarked once that trained animals could do what the lawyers did since reading from a deposition outline did not require much work. Of course, I doubt AI will soon be able to deal with hostile witnesses and difficult examinations, but most routine depositions are already rote affairs that AI might soon be able to handle.
Artificial technology is becoming extremely good at mimicking the voices of individuals, and numerous public figures have had their voices used by AI tools in recent months. It might not be a stretch to believe that in the future, artificial intelligence may be able to mimic the likeness of people, like lawyers, as well. Since many court proceedings are still held by phone or by Zoom, parties might be fooled by artificial intelligence without knowing it.
To bring this back to reality, it is of course unlikely that artificial technology will be fulfilling many roles within the legal profession anytime soon. The practice of law is highly regulated, and lawyers are not going to be able to use artificial intelligence to substitute for their own services without drawing the ire of courts, grievance committees, and possibly prosecutors. For the foreseeable future, people will need to be represented by human beings rather than technology, and lawyers will not be able to lean on artificial intelligence too much without getting into trouble.
However, I think it would be a great intellectual challenge to see if someone can create artificial intelligence that can compete against some of the best lawyers, just like IBM created Deep Blue and Watson to compete against chess masters and Jeopardy! champions. In the aforementioned episode of “The Paper Chase,” Professor Kingsfield won in the end when competing against the computer, I’d like to hope some of the luminaries in our profession would do the same today.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
