Can AI bridge the gap of inequity in the UK judiciary?

We’ve all seen that movie.

A dangerous witness escapes the case, thanks to a long night of preparation for that moment, until a cunning lawyer destroys the evidence in the witness box.

Tears of joy are shed and judges are banging their gavels (only in American courtrooms, mind you). The afterword says that this incident made the world a better place.

Not so fast.

Every day there is a legal battle and the little man or woman loses. And very often they lose because they can’t afford to fight a wealthy opponent in their corner.

Artificial intelligence, the most talked about topic of the past two years, has the potential to transform social justice and equity.

The legal community is excited about what AI is doing to the law.

In addition to performing basic tasks such as drafting contracts, systems have also been devised to analyze thousands of pages of evidence in the most complex cases.

And this revolution isn’t just happening in the high-rises of global law firms; it’s also happening quietly in places like Westway Trust’s Cost of Living Crisis Clinic in London.

The advice clinic in London helps clients in one of the UK’s most deprived areas deal with a number of complex disputes, from benefit appeals to disputes with landlords.

One customer told the BBC how he became homeless after his landlord canceled his rental agreement.

“I’m a professional person, but I’m not used to being in situations like this,” she says.

“It’s painful, it’s precarious, and it’s very difficult to be homeless even at this age.”

There is legal aid for the absolute poorest in society, but it is means-tested and very limited. Many people give up fighting what they instinctively know is injustice.

So what does this have to do with artificial intelligence? Going to court can be costly. The goal of any smart person is to have a solution long before that point. And that requires expert advice.

Adam Samji is a paralegal advisor at Westway. He investigates whether a client’s case is worth fighting, such as an unscrupulous landlord or a denial of a benefit claim by the government, and helps prepare the case.

Benefit eligibility assessments can run up to 60 pages. In individual cases, it can take many hours to carefully analyze your personal situation.

Westway is currently using AI tools to sift through these types of documents to uncover key facts and legal issues that can make or break a case.

“We spend several minutes reviewing (the documents) and redacting the client’s personal information,” Samji said.

“You upload it to the AI ​​model and you get all the information, and it usually comes back in about 10 to 15 minutes.

“This saves us hours of having to do the process ourselves. As volunteer paralegals, we can use our time more efficiently to better serve our clients. ”

This is a revolution. AI is beginning to fill what many see as a fairness gap in the justice system.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, is the Civil Attorney-General of England and Wales. He led the judiciary’s thinking about how far AI could go and produced the UK’s first guidance on how AI should be used in courts.

“When people have claims that cannot be resolved, it creates a huge economic cost to our society,” says Sir Jeffrey.

“They’re worried about their bills. They’re less productive. Those of us in the justice system want to find ways to solve people’s problems faster and at lower cost. I’m seriously thinking about it.

“Eventually, artificial intelligence will become one of those tools.”

So how far will this AI revolution go?

Stephen Dowling is a lawyer and the owner of Trialview. Trialview is one of many companies vying for a slice of the legal AI market, which global research group Gartner predicts will grow explosively over the next two years.

His tool aims to analyze the recording of a witness’ statement in court in real time and compare it to other evidence in the case. If it finds something that seems inconsistent or wrong, the tool will flag it. That is traditionally the job of lawyers.

However, in a courtroom, particularly in a complex hearing such as a commercial fraud case, every lead attorney may have a large support team on hand.

“The technology we’re looking at will allow one lawyer or two lawyers to do the work of 10 or 20 people,” Dowling predicts.

“It will revolutionize access to justice and significantly reduce litigation costs.

“People ultimately need human judges to listen to what they have to say and to emotionally connect with the matters involved. But all of that will be aided and enhanced by the use of artificial intelligence. You can.”

And it is this human factor that the legal community is currently grappling with, as the potential downsides are clear.

In 2023, a New York court fined an attorney who submitted false claims derived from questions entered into ChatGPT.

The EU recently introduced rules to ensure AI accuracy. This means that the output of the AI ​​needs to be checked by a real human. This is a real risk, one that the team at Westway Trust are well aware of.

“Right now, about one in 30 times the information is inaccurate,” said John Mahoney, a lawyer for the group.

“Therefore, all work generated through AI in connection with the filing of legal opinions must be checked.”

Was that human check written to Sir Geoffrey’s rules?

“Ultimately, the rule of law requires that individuals have access to independent judges to decide their cases,” the Chief Justice says.

“If you are using technology tools, the parties need to be aware that it is happening.

“Judges are supported by technology tools. We’ve been doing that for years. You’re obviously talking about robo-judges. But I think we’re a long way from there. ”

His guidance not only requires lawyers to remain accountable for the evidence they present in court, but judges must also be wary of biased results from AI tools trained on partial data. It emphasizes that it must be done.

We asked a legal question to see how ChatGPT would respond, and we found that both regarding terminating the contract and resolving a legal dispute with a former partner over ownership of Kitchen Pan. , I got very simple advice.

He refused to advise a hypothetical bank robber how he could overcome his crime.

While that may be fun, Sir Jeffrey warns against the general public seeking advice from general purpose AI tools that have not been trained on specialized legal databases.

“It does not differentiate between English law, Australian law, Singapore law and perhaps US law,” he warns.

But, he added, “I am a firm believer that technology will never stand still.

“The rule of law depends on the ability of an independent judiciary to deliver results. In a country of 60 million people, a small number of judges, without effective use of technological tools, can do that. It is very difficult.”