• TECHNOLOGY
US – MASSACHUSETTS, TEXAS, CONNECTICUT
About us...
MY ADVICE...
Client protection and maintaining the client-lawyer relationship • Make sure there are AI measures protecting work product and client information. • Don’t waive client-attorney privilege by submitting information to a robot. • Close loop – make sure that your work, research, questions, etc., are not going to be remembered by AI and won’t become discoverable in the AI system to third parties.
and double-check the results – this will help minimise liability. • Use a system that is checks constantly for defects to avoid errors and falsifications.
Person at the helm
intelligence-based technologies into their practice. Further, the opinion operates as a reminder of the pillars of professionalism in the legal profession, such as client confidentiality, communication, and legal competence. Moreover, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued an advisory on April 16, 2024, acknowledging the safeguards the Commonwealth has adopted involving AI and forewarning AI users, suppliers, and developers of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A) and its bearing on AI. Additionally, the advisory reminds us of the Commonwealth’s Anti-Discrimination Law, GL c. 151B, §4 which prohibits developers, suppliers, and users of AI systems from deploying technology that discriminates against residents based on a legally protected characteristic. The Boston Bar Association has published numerous practice tips and articles focusing on the responsibilities associated with using AI. Data privacy and security are themes of concern, as is the risk of unauthorised access or data breaches. Additionally, adhering to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures is vital when using AI. The main thrust of the rule is to ensure that attorneys do not present frivolous claims, defenses, and other legal contentions to the court in written pleadings or papers to the court. “When employing AI in any capacity, the question becomes whether the user or the AI system will be held accountable for the results.”
• AI hasn’t lived with the case as you have – facts can be more nuanced, therefore what AI generates doesn’t have the knowledge and familiarity that the attorneys and staff working the case have. • AI is an excellent baseline tool for research, but it is only the start of the process, it should not be the end result. • Nuanced issues need to be probed for further information. • You can’t replace an experienced professional who can check their law and facts and do their own due diligence.
With offices in Austin, Boston, New York & London, Thomas H. Curran Associates, LLC represents a wide variety of individuals, businesses, corporate entities, and governmental agencies in litigation and transactional matters throughout the United States and Western Europe. We have navigated a broad range of commercial litigation cases, including cross-border insolvency, institutional creditors’ rights, bet the company litigation, and have earned a winning track record throughout the United States.
Reliability
• Make sure that the system is calculated explicitly for legal professionals and relies on verified legal resources, don’t fall for the “short-cut” trap. • Only pull from vetted and reliable resources,
thcalaw.com
Thomas Curran speaking with IR Global members during a professional networking event.
“With our innovative approach to complex litigation challenges, we consistently and effectively deliver unparalleled value to our clients.”
Q3 What questions does AI pose for liability – who is accountable for the actions of AI and has your jurisdiction prepared for the question? As previously mentioned, the rise of AI is inescapable and has gradually melded into the practice of law. Nevertheless, the rise of AI poses considerable issues, notably ethical and legal concerns. When employing AI in any capacity, the question becomes
whether the user or the AI system will be held accountable for the results. Massachusetts has already taken the initiative to combat these rising concerns. On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. The opinion reflects the rising concerns surrounding generative artificial intelligence in law practice, particularly emphasising the care and vigilance lawyers and law firms should employ if they decide to integrate artificial
10 | irglobal
irglobal | 11
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease