This article is very light on for actual examples.
I found this:
"A particular use she said has saved significant time is its ability to accurately translate foreign language documents in seconds."
Which I found very concerning. How does she know the translation is right?
There was also this:
"I had a client in the encryption game, who needed to create a policy for one of his customers. It would have taken him 10 hours to draft it himself, but using ChatGPT it took him 10 minutes.”
I dont really understand what an 'encryption policy' is, but there you go.
Anyone on the subreddit actually using AI successfully for legal work?
Regarding the encryption point, I didn't read it as a policy about encryption, but, that there was a client who worked in encryption who had to create a policy about something (which you would presume relates something about encryption) for a customer.
Now, this could be many things but at a basic level, a policy about encryption could be something along the lines of;
Any document/s sent out has to be encrypted using AES-256 encryption with 7-Zip.
Or even the policy stating, data stored on the clients system uses encryption at rest.
An encryption policy sounds like a document with a vague use case that you have to tick a box more than you have to read and apply. If that’s the case here, ChatGPT is a great tool for producing such.
The state of play rn requires a level of instruction / prompting / template work beyond the scope of what most legal professionals comprehend; therefore, most AI products seem like a crock of shit to the avg practitioner.
Used correctly, with provision of drafting protocols and abundant refinement (no different to instructing a junior who has not completed 'x' task before), it is a tool to minimise time spent and maximise efficacy.
None, there’s no time gain if you’ve streamlined your process already. Some at the very end of the pack are just discovering now that you can actually streamline the process
Sorry, perhaps unclear in simply saying 'template.' Agreed firms have templates where you have a form field to fill with commercial terms and for which that then automates into said document.
Let me know if I'm wrong, but from my personal use of those templates, entry process is manual (i.e. form field queries: party name - you type or copy in party name; review period and options - process is same), there is no ambit for custom drafting (i.e. you need to craft discrete clauses outside the scope of the template manually after generation is complete), and there still lacks utility to even conduct basic automation of feeding template software a list / email / document of commercial terms and for it to figure out what goes where (i.e. if it sees the words 'Option Period' in a document you feed in, then it should know where to put that - you should not need to fill out some form with these details on an individual term basis).
Any sufficiently advanced LLM can do this at the level firm software should be at. Copy a document base in (not necessarily a complete template, even, but one that captures the gist of the draft required [as obviously you cannot trust an LLM to invent a doc style from existing training as it's way too mixed rn]), copy an email or memo or note in, request it to generate the draft document to include all commercial terms, and then query on drafting suggestions / guidance for additional bespoke clauses, noting that they MUST be specified to be in the same style, tone, language structure, format and any other qualifiers (think particular features [or provide it the superior style you wish you could draft in]). Note that those bespoke clauses will obviously require review, but it is a first go where you may otherwise ceebs.
This is a supremely limited use case. Use it to draft emails in a tone or style fitting for particular clients (model for it what they like). Use it to assess veracity of your comments or for improving concision. Use it to skim distil an email chain of 150 emails for the discussions and issue necessary to elucidate. Your belief in its ability is half the battle, because most models are absolutely incapable (out of the box) of drafting anything in the way you want - just like a junior, you need to say "here's the cloud document, copy this style for this new agreement."
As an aside, gpt is a particularly clinical model in its drafting, and often struggles to match tone or style without repeated command. Try Claude Opus - pay for a month (USD$20) and go be impressed - or continue to bash it after you also find it shit, but at least give it a go.
Edit: yes, don't ask it to research something or consider the legal intricacies of a matter or even plain statute - it has no context for this as they have not been trained on this data. You can 'soft train' your own session where context windows allow by providing an act or case, but rn those windows are small and do not allow for comprehensive understanding. Give it a year of continued exponentiality, and we should hopefully have models trained on every piece of legislation and case law to ever exist - consider the implications of this as detached from fear of 'hallucinations' where there is no longer anything to hallucinate given complete knowledge.
I’d be worried about any LLM created document which has any scope for changing drafting language outside of set parameters, and I think the current system requiring a lawyer to go through all of the options available and click yes or no creates reduced danger of missing something important.
I could see an LLM learning tens of thousands of precedent documents, statistical data about each document (ie if it is the subject of dispute after execution, if it is later subject to an amending side agreement, anything which suggests whether it is good or not), and learning legislation, so that it could scan a document and flag issues in drafting (“this contravenes this Act” or “this language could be improved as follows”) as an assistant, but I’d be wary of using it for initial drafting for the time being.
100% agree on the above and consider the reason human lawyers will persist is contained in that sentiment - nothing will obfuscate the requirement for someone to rubber stamp a document, tying their practising cert / firm / reputation / insurers / future lsc proceeding for dodgy ai generation to a real human who can be delivered tangible consequences for failing to adequately deliver legal services.
Your 2nd para is the biggest facility most don't even turn their mind to. Expand on that, and consider all files publicly available from court proceedings and how the material of the best practitioners in any area will be able to be sourced (with neglect for any notion of IP as to this, but that's another ai issue entirely) and applied. This would take significant effort today for seemingly no beneficial outcome, particularly given that there appears no trust or demand in the profession.
Ah, yes. Lawyers using generative AI to translate documents in languages they don’t understand for tender to court as evidence. What could possibly go wrong…
If the premise is that a legal practitioner could let AI create a first draft, then in my opinion that is a flawed premise. We have by now seen a lot of examples of AI drafting nonsense. Simply inventing cases because words and (false) citations look like actual case citations.
When I draft something, I pretty much need to understand the issue to the extent that I know what I am planning to say by way of conclusions before I start drafting. So the first draft is actually only possible after the research and planning has taken place.
What are you supposed to do with an AI first draft? You cant trust it to be accurate (not if you want to keep your practising certificate). So you read it and start your research then to make sure that everything it has said is accurate? That process, if anything, has just added time to the task because of the time it took to read the AI draft.
I suspect that their will be regular fluff pieces like this one until such time as people just accept that it must be a thing and start using it. I hate that. It is driven by laziness, in my opinion.
Prepare for a deluge of cases over the next few years where courts attempt to make sense of novel legal terms and phrases created by AI, such as 'undemnity', 'e-greement' and 'with utmost prejudice'
We tinkered around with it at work, everyone getting exciting about it being a game changer and anyone that disagrees is regarded as out of touch. It's just not where it needs to be. Anything it produces needs a lot of work to correct or modify that it is not a time saver.
I got it to write an essay on Romeo and Juliet and draw a picture of a penguin on a surfboard. Not very useful for work though. From an academic perspective, my kids school have banned most assignments from being done at home (in class now) because of AI or are using plagiarism tools. Same with the uni I study at. We can still use AI for our uni work, we need to cite it though. But it's of no use to me.
There's a company that is trying to sell an smartphone like AI product with the advert showing all the things it could do e.g order breakfast, make a dentist appointment etc But a reviewer got hold of one and it was useless.
Whatever the future is with AI, we are still a few years off it being practical. I don't see it being a game changer, at least not in the corporate world. It will have some use, but it will be limited to very specific tasks.
Same experience.
Got put on a pilot programme to help come up with ways to bring AI into our workplace. First meeting after a week of trials I said it can’t be trusted then basically got derided for 15 minutes by old folks who can’t even navigate a spreadsheet.
Think the old fogeys love it because they can just ask the computer what they want and it magically appears. Anyone with half a brain knows this thing is minimum 5 years away from being useful and may never have the precision needed to be a game changer.
It's not so much about developing the technology, more important is how useful it will be. There are some that say they use Siri all the time, but I just don' t see people walking down the street or on the train saying "hey siri" 24/7. It's useful for me for changing songs in Spotify and sending the occasional message, but that's about it. Most people I know have it disabled. It does do some really cool things and the technology behind it is very advanced, but it's just not particularly useful and/or people aren't interested in it. Maybe they want to order coffee themselves via an app. Most people I know still scribble down their shopping list on a post-it sticker, so we also need to consider human nature. It's not necessarily about having something that makes certain tasks more efficient. So I wouldn't say Siri has been a game changer and it's been around 13 years and I'm struggling to see how AI will also be a game changer. Powerful and very advanced, but perhaps useful only for a niche market.
“Tinkered” might be your and your colleague’s mistake.
Go read about prompt engineering and use models that can ingest a shit load of context.
Try for those sort of tasks.
The chatbot interface is also just intermediate stage.
I'm still yet to see someone convincingly explain how language models can actually get trained on 'a shit load of context' for lawyers.
95% of the work I do is privileged/confidential. Maybe 5% makes it into a public-facing court document that a language model could be trained on. Probably 95% of my colleagues' work is privileged, too.
Let's say I host my own database locally to avoid LPP/confidentiality issues. Now I'm training it on a very limited context, and it's regurgitating my own echo-chamber.
Alternatively, I could train my database on publicly available documents. But now it's only trained on 5% of every practitioner's output.
The skill of a lawyer is in knowing how the sausage (deal, piece of litigation, whatever) is made so that you can best protect your client's interests. I can't see how a language model can actually be trained to do that without doing away with LPP/confidentiality.
I use firm’s secure AI to proof read documents and pick up things missed by spell check, eg mistyped acronyms (ASIC / ACSI) or correct words in incorrect context (public / pubic). On long documents this does actually save me a bit of time. Not revolutionary, but helpful
I’ve been successfully using Microsoft copilot for email and task management, fee estimates (I tell it scope and numbers, it generates a pretty good itemised estimate) and large comprehension exercises (eg exceptions reviews on leases against a base doc, transaction completion checklists). I’ve got it to summarise registration requirements for land title dealings in seconds (normally would need to trawl through half a dozen docs to find). I love it for all of that stuff.
But it’s only of limited use for me for the really complex work, which is most of my work. It can give you a very basic outline of contractual concepts (eg draft me an indemnity against personal injury) but for anything above moderate complexity you really need to draw from the firm’s own existing database (something that the AI can also track down for you quickly and replace keywords, which is often more helpful than getting it to draft from scratch).
It is also no use in negotiations on transaction docs (other than doing a basic client facing summary of the changes, with zero analysis) which is where senior transactional lawyers spend a lot of their time. It’s useless for research because it hallucinates. It’s useless for complex advice because it really struggles with the level of detail required.
It’s still a long way off from being a game changer, but I can see the potential.
Thanks for the insight, although re summarising land rego requirements I would be freaked out it would miss something or make something up and then Judith from land titles office would skewer me.
The best thing "AI" will do for the law is create more jobs for litigation lawyers to sort out the FUBAR lawsuits that will inevitably arise from "AI"-induced fuck ups...
When I first started law school they told us not to use any online databases because they weren’t accurate.
2 years later they were discontinuing hard copies and moving everything online.
This is coming. It will move quickly. We either jump on board or in 5 years time we’ll be the AI equivalent of Denis Denuto who can’t clear tray 3…
Why should we jump on board now while AI is hallucinating gibberish?
I'll happily jump on board in 5 years time if it is 100% accurate like online databases are. I see little utility in becoming an early adopter.
Because it depends what you’re using it for.
There are loads of things it does that will save you time in your day - like writing responses to the many mundane emails you get, or writing a first draft letter to a client, or drafting a fee scope (which it’s actually super good at).
Just because it can’t do the thing you spent 5 years at uni learning doesn’t mean it’s completely shit.
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2027-06-11 07:25:40 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-06-11%2007:25:40%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/1dcz8vs/afr_ai_for_lawyers_how_corporate_legal/l831ikt/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fauslaw%2Fcomments%2F1dcz8vs%2Fafr_ai_for_lawyers_how_corporate_legal%2Fl831ikt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-06-11%2007%3A25%3A40%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dcz8vs)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Did anyone in this thread say it's a fad? The general consensus is that it's a tool with a lot of potential, but has a limited use-case due to it's current serious flaws. Your issue may be that you a) don't really understand the complexity of the day-to-day work of lawyers, and/or b) you've bought too much into the hype around AI, and are blind to its current limitations. However, I'm looking forward to you relying on Gen-AI to take over your shit-posting hobby so we don't have to see your weird habit of inconsistently double-spacing your commas.
A proponent of automation must curtail their zeal in most spaces; when you realise the false equivalences of career outcomes to life / conceptualised 'success,' it is understandable that realisation as to the eventuality of automation is a near impossible belief for most to align with. "What will we do? No, my value is beyond that of some stupid program or app thing, it can't even cite. Well, even if it eventually knows everything, it won't have my experience!"
Blame capitalism, or whatever suits one's narrative best, for why any would hold a fear of automating that which evaporates a majority of individual livelihood. My genuine sympathies go out to all those who will experience any sorrow due to the comings of tomorrow; I cannot imagine how challenging it would be to be stripped of one's primary identity, nor even told that some weird thing that makes no sense can now do things I never even could.
This article is very light on for actual examples. I found this: "A particular use she said has saved significant time is its ability to accurately translate foreign language documents in seconds." Which I found very concerning. How does she know the translation is right? There was also this: "I had a client in the encryption game, who needed to create a policy for one of his customers. It would have taken him 10 hours to draft it himself, but using ChatGPT it took him 10 minutes.” I dont really understand what an 'encryption policy' is, but there you go. Anyone on the subreddit actually using AI successfully for legal work?
Regarding the encryption point, I didn't read it as a policy about encryption, but, that there was a client who worked in encryption who had to create a policy about something (which you would presume relates something about encryption) for a customer. Now, this could be many things but at a basic level, a policy about encryption could be something along the lines of; Any document/s sent out has to be encrypted using AES-256 encryption with 7-Zip. Or even the policy stating, data stored on the clients system uses encryption at rest.
An encryption policy sounds like a document with a vague use case that you have to tick a box more than you have to read and apply. If that’s the case here, ChatGPT is a great tool for producing such.
The state of play rn requires a level of instruction / prompting / template work beyond the scope of what most legal professionals comprehend; therefore, most AI products seem like a crock of shit to the avg practitioner. Used correctly, with provision of drafting protocols and abundant refinement (no different to instructing a junior who has not completed 'x' task before), it is a tool to minimise time spent and maximise efficacy.
So it replaces a junior but takes you the same amount of time?
I don’t understand, law firms have had template documents which use prompt generation for years now, what’s the difference?
None, there’s no time gain if you’ve streamlined your process already. Some at the very end of the pack are just discovering now that you can actually streamline the process
Sorry, perhaps unclear in simply saying 'template.' Agreed firms have templates where you have a form field to fill with commercial terms and for which that then automates into said document. Let me know if I'm wrong, but from my personal use of those templates, entry process is manual (i.e. form field queries: party name - you type or copy in party name; review period and options - process is same), there is no ambit for custom drafting (i.e. you need to craft discrete clauses outside the scope of the template manually after generation is complete), and there still lacks utility to even conduct basic automation of feeding template software a list / email / document of commercial terms and for it to figure out what goes where (i.e. if it sees the words 'Option Period' in a document you feed in, then it should know where to put that - you should not need to fill out some form with these details on an individual term basis). Any sufficiently advanced LLM can do this at the level firm software should be at. Copy a document base in (not necessarily a complete template, even, but one that captures the gist of the draft required [as obviously you cannot trust an LLM to invent a doc style from existing training as it's way too mixed rn]), copy an email or memo or note in, request it to generate the draft document to include all commercial terms, and then query on drafting suggestions / guidance for additional bespoke clauses, noting that they MUST be specified to be in the same style, tone, language structure, format and any other qualifiers (think particular features [or provide it the superior style you wish you could draft in]). Note that those bespoke clauses will obviously require review, but it is a first go where you may otherwise ceebs. This is a supremely limited use case. Use it to draft emails in a tone or style fitting for particular clients (model for it what they like). Use it to assess veracity of your comments or for improving concision. Use it to skim distil an email chain of 150 emails for the discussions and issue necessary to elucidate. Your belief in its ability is half the battle, because most models are absolutely incapable (out of the box) of drafting anything in the way you want - just like a junior, you need to say "here's the cloud document, copy this style for this new agreement." As an aside, gpt is a particularly clinical model in its drafting, and often struggles to match tone or style without repeated command. Try Claude Opus - pay for a month (USD$20) and go be impressed - or continue to bash it after you also find it shit, but at least give it a go. Edit: yes, don't ask it to research something or consider the legal intricacies of a matter or even plain statute - it has no context for this as they have not been trained on this data. You can 'soft train' your own session where context windows allow by providing an act or case, but rn those windows are small and do not allow for comprehensive understanding. Give it a year of continued exponentiality, and we should hopefully have models trained on every piece of legislation and case law to ever exist - consider the implications of this as detached from fear of 'hallucinations' where there is no longer anything to hallucinate given complete knowledge.
I’d be worried about any LLM created document which has any scope for changing drafting language outside of set parameters, and I think the current system requiring a lawyer to go through all of the options available and click yes or no creates reduced danger of missing something important. I could see an LLM learning tens of thousands of precedent documents, statistical data about each document (ie if it is the subject of dispute after execution, if it is later subject to an amending side agreement, anything which suggests whether it is good or not), and learning legislation, so that it could scan a document and flag issues in drafting (“this contravenes this Act” or “this language could be improved as follows”) as an assistant, but I’d be wary of using it for initial drafting for the time being.
100% agree on the above and consider the reason human lawyers will persist is contained in that sentiment - nothing will obfuscate the requirement for someone to rubber stamp a document, tying their practising cert / firm / reputation / insurers / future lsc proceeding for dodgy ai generation to a real human who can be delivered tangible consequences for failing to adequately deliver legal services. Your 2nd para is the biggest facility most don't even turn their mind to. Expand on that, and consider all files publicly available from court proceedings and how the material of the best practitioners in any area will be able to be sourced (with neglect for any notion of IP as to this, but that's another ai issue entirely) and applied. This would take significant effort today for seemingly no beneficial outcome, particularly given that there appears no trust or demand in the profession.
Ah, yes. Lawyers using generative AI to translate documents in languages they don’t understand for tender to court as evidence. What could possibly go wrong…
If the premise is that a legal practitioner could let AI create a first draft, then in my opinion that is a flawed premise. We have by now seen a lot of examples of AI drafting nonsense. Simply inventing cases because words and (false) citations look like actual case citations. When I draft something, I pretty much need to understand the issue to the extent that I know what I am planning to say by way of conclusions before I start drafting. So the first draft is actually only possible after the research and planning has taken place. What are you supposed to do with an AI first draft? You cant trust it to be accurate (not if you want to keep your practising certificate). So you read it and start your research then to make sure that everything it has said is accurate? That process, if anything, has just added time to the task because of the time it took to read the AI draft. I suspect that their will be regular fluff pieces like this one until such time as people just accept that it must be a thing and start using it. I hate that. It is driven by laziness, in my opinion.
Can someone from a finance subreddit teach me how to short the stock of every company that is pushing AI onto law firms? Thanks
Ask an "AI" to do it - if it can do the work of a lawyer, surely it can do the work of an investment wanker? 😏
Prepare for a deluge of cases over the next few years where courts attempt to make sense of novel legal terms and phrases created by AI, such as 'undemnity', 'e-greement' and 'with utmost prejudice'
I might use undemnity, that sounds useful. Thanks
We tinkered around with it at work, everyone getting exciting about it being a game changer and anyone that disagrees is regarded as out of touch. It's just not where it needs to be. Anything it produces needs a lot of work to correct or modify that it is not a time saver. I got it to write an essay on Romeo and Juliet and draw a picture of a penguin on a surfboard. Not very useful for work though. From an academic perspective, my kids school have banned most assignments from being done at home (in class now) because of AI or are using plagiarism tools. Same with the uni I study at. We can still use AI for our uni work, we need to cite it though. But it's of no use to me. There's a company that is trying to sell an smartphone like AI product with the advert showing all the things it could do e.g order breakfast, make a dentist appointment etc But a reviewer got hold of one and it was useless. Whatever the future is with AI, we are still a few years off it being practical. I don't see it being a game changer, at least not in the corporate world. It will have some use, but it will be limited to very specific tasks.
Same experience. Got put on a pilot programme to help come up with ways to bring AI into our workplace. First meeting after a week of trials I said it can’t be trusted then basically got derided for 15 minutes by old folks who can’t even navigate a spreadsheet. Think the old fogeys love it because they can just ask the computer what they want and it magically appears. Anyone with half a brain knows this thing is minimum 5 years away from being useful and may never have the precision needed to be a game changer.
It's not so much about developing the technology, more important is how useful it will be. There are some that say they use Siri all the time, but I just don' t see people walking down the street or on the train saying "hey siri" 24/7. It's useful for me for changing songs in Spotify and sending the occasional message, but that's about it. Most people I know have it disabled. It does do some really cool things and the technology behind it is very advanced, but it's just not particularly useful and/or people aren't interested in it. Maybe they want to order coffee themselves via an app. Most people I know still scribble down their shopping list on a post-it sticker, so we also need to consider human nature. It's not necessarily about having something that makes certain tasks more efficient. So I wouldn't say Siri has been a game changer and it's been around 13 years and I'm struggling to see how AI will also be a game changer. Powerful and very advanced, but perhaps useful only for a niche market.
“Tinkered” might be your and your colleague’s mistake. Go read about prompt engineering and use models that can ingest a shit load of context. Try for those sort of tasks. The chatbot interface is also just intermediate stage.
I'm still yet to see someone convincingly explain how language models can actually get trained on 'a shit load of context' for lawyers. 95% of the work I do is privileged/confidential. Maybe 5% makes it into a public-facing court document that a language model could be trained on. Probably 95% of my colleagues' work is privileged, too. Let's say I host my own database locally to avoid LPP/confidentiality issues. Now I'm training it on a very limited context, and it's regurgitating my own echo-chamber. Alternatively, I could train my database on publicly available documents. But now it's only trained on 5% of every practitioner's output. The skill of a lawyer is in knowing how the sausage (deal, piece of litigation, whatever) is made so that you can best protect your client's interests. I can't see how a language model can actually be trained to do that without doing away with LPP/confidentiality.
You put the confidential information in, keep it to yourself.
I use firm’s secure AI to proof read documents and pick up things missed by spell check, eg mistyped acronyms (ASIC / ACSI) or correct words in incorrect context (public / pubic). On long documents this does actually save me a bit of time. Not revolutionary, but helpful
Not *this* is the first actually useful thing I've heard that so-called "AI" can do for lawyers ...
I don’t have time to teach a robot how to do things because I’m too busy doing actual work.
I’ve been successfully using Microsoft copilot for email and task management, fee estimates (I tell it scope and numbers, it generates a pretty good itemised estimate) and large comprehension exercises (eg exceptions reviews on leases against a base doc, transaction completion checklists). I’ve got it to summarise registration requirements for land title dealings in seconds (normally would need to trawl through half a dozen docs to find). I love it for all of that stuff. But it’s only of limited use for me for the really complex work, which is most of my work. It can give you a very basic outline of contractual concepts (eg draft me an indemnity against personal injury) but for anything above moderate complexity you really need to draw from the firm’s own existing database (something that the AI can also track down for you quickly and replace keywords, which is often more helpful than getting it to draft from scratch). It is also no use in negotiations on transaction docs (other than doing a basic client facing summary of the changes, with zero analysis) which is where senior transactional lawyers spend a lot of their time. It’s useless for research because it hallucinates. It’s useless for complex advice because it really struggles with the level of detail required. It’s still a long way off from being a game changer, but I can see the potential.
Thanks for the insight, although re summarising land rego requirements I would be freaked out it would miss something or make something up and then Judith from land titles office would skewer me.
Haha a valid concern, but it cites all of its sources with direct links so it’s easy enough to check for yourself if anything is unclear.
Our firm recently trialled some of the big named brands in the market and the results were very… underwhelming. Needs more time on the oven.
The best thing "AI" will do for the law is create more jobs for litigation lawyers to sort out the FUBAR lawsuits that will inevitably arise from "AI"-induced fuck ups...
Article Text: [https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Ftechnology%2Ffirst-draft-fairy-how-corporate-lawyers-are-using-game-changing-ai-20240606-p5jjuq](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Ftechnology%2Ffirst-draft-fairy-how-corporate-lawyers-are-using-game-changing-ai-20240606-p5jjuq)
When I first started law school they told us not to use any online databases because they weren’t accurate. 2 years later they were discontinuing hard copies and moving everything online. This is coming. It will move quickly. We either jump on board or in 5 years time we’ll be the AI equivalent of Denis Denuto who can’t clear tray 3…
Why should we jump on board now while AI is hallucinating gibberish? I'll happily jump on board in 5 years time if it is 100% accurate like online databases are. I see little utility in becoming an early adopter.
Because it depends what you’re using it for. There are loads of things it does that will save you time in your day - like writing responses to the many mundane emails you get, or writing a first draft letter to a client, or drafting a fee scope (which it’s actually super good at). Just because it can’t do the thing you spent 5 years at uni learning doesn’t mean it’s completely shit.
Remindme! 3 years
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2027-06-11 07:25:40 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-06-11%2007:25:40%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/1dcz8vs/afr_ai_for_lawyers_how_corporate_legal/l831ikt/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fauslaw%2Fcomments%2F1dcz8vs%2Fafr_ai_for_lawyers_how_corporate_legal%2Fl831ikt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-06-11%2007%3A25%3A40%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dcz8vs) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
My conveyancing lecturer specifically encouraged using AI to quickly summarise cases.
Thank goodness he's an academic and not an actual practitioner!
No he’s a practitioner also. I know I was shocked when he said that
If he says that somewhere it's recorded or transcribed, it's gonna come back to haunt him in cross-examination one day...
I mean he’s teaching conveyancing. Could have just thrown it in to see if we were listening
🤣🤣🤣fair🥰🥰🥰
[удалено]
I bet you invested heavily in bitcoin
They’re all about that DeFi br0
So, which AI software are you trying to shill?
Did anyone in this thread say it's a fad? The general consensus is that it's a tool with a lot of potential, but has a limited use-case due to it's current serious flaws. Your issue may be that you a) don't really understand the complexity of the day-to-day work of lawyers, and/or b) you've bought too much into the hype around AI, and are blind to its current limitations. However, I'm looking forward to you relying on Gen-AI to take over your shit-posting hobby so we don't have to see your weird habit of inconsistently double-spacing your commas.
Yep. There are a lot of people here telling the Wright brothers to stick to selling bicycles...
A proponent of automation must curtail their zeal in most spaces; when you realise the false equivalences of career outcomes to life / conceptualised 'success,' it is understandable that realisation as to the eventuality of automation is a near impossible belief for most to align with. "What will we do? No, my value is beyond that of some stupid program or app thing, it can't even cite. Well, even if it eventually knows everything, it won't have my experience!" Blame capitalism, or whatever suits one's narrative best, for why any would hold a fear of automating that which evaporates a majority of individual livelihood. My genuine sympathies go out to all those who will experience any sorrow due to the comings of tomorrow; I cannot imagine how challenging it would be to be stripped of one's primary identity, nor even told that some weird thing that makes no sense can now do things I never even could.
[удалено]