When Cleveland-based BakerHostetler agreed to a partnership between its bankruptcy practice and IBM’s ROSS Intelligence, a legal research tool powered by artificial intelligence, some observers characterized that as the dawn of the legal apocalypse, in which robots replace human lawyers.

So far, AI certainly hasn’t replaced any attorneys at Baker — the firm reports 970 lawyers today versus a headcount of 905 in 2016 — but it has dispensed with some of the more mundane and tedious tasks that used to occupy them.

While there’s often a reluctance in the legal services industry to adopt new technologies, as well as some concern that the coming wave of AI could displace flesh-and-blood attorneys, there’s a sense of urgency today among lawyers and firms to embrace artificial intelligence or risk being left behind.

“Yes, there is some anxiety. But we have to look at the cause and effect,” said Bob Craig, Baker’s chief information officer. “These technologies are all intertwined, including how clients manage legal work differently. There will not be robots that replace lawyers, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be disruption. We are trying to stay ahead of that disruptive curve so it’s not disrupting to us, but empowering to us.”

Competitive edge

AI generally boils down to the collection and deciphering of data through some kind of automated process. The related software can help with tasks ranging from the laborious scouring of legal documents — in Baker’s bankruptcy practice, ROSS has been used to study and track case law — to predicting case results.

At Dinsmore & Shohl, Cleveland managing partner James Dimitrijevs does just that in his international trademark practice through analysis of Excel spreadsheets, a process ripe for improvement by AI.

“More automated analysis through the use of AI would allow us to assess exponentially more data and more thoroughly and accurately predict the outcomes of potential future disputes,” Dimitrijevs said.

The rise of AI in law — and the varying interest or reluctance associated with it — is not unlike other revolutions in the legal services industry spurred by new technology or other factors.

Many lawyers didn’t want to ditch their typewriters as personal computers hit the market. When LexisNexis and Westlaw research surfaced decades ago, a good few attorneys clung to rooting through their firms’ libraries for years to come; now, both those platforms are synonymous with the practice of law.

The advent of AI and other emerging tech, such as blockchain, will drive the next revolution in legal services.

“AI is a disruptive technology that is definitely going to have a huge impact on the legal service industry,” said Michael Scharf, a co-dean at Case Western University School of Law. “It’s not yet at the point where AI is writing briefs. But, conceivably within the next 10 years, AI will be able to produce briefs that are indiscernible from human-produced products.”

The notion that a computer program could replace a person and usher in mass unemployment is where the doomsday fears pop up, Scharf said.

“I’m personally not afraid this is going to replace lawyers or put firms out of business,” Scharf said, “but it will change the law. Law is evolutionary and it seems to absorb these disruptive elements and move on. But you’ve got to be smart about it.”

Firms like Baker have been hailed as forward-thinking as they implement new technology and AI specifically. The firm continues this approach through its research-and-development arm — internally known as “incuBaker” — which is engaged in various partnerships with tech companies that can test their products and services within the law firm itself. Baker prefers to keep most of those efforts close to its vest, though. The ROSS news only made headlines because IBM promoted the partnership.

Baker, like other firms, touts the benefits of technology in delivering services. If any automated process can increase efficiency or better meet client demands, most firms say it should be sought out and embraced.

“There is, or should be, a sense of urgency to understanding technology and deploying it in a way that benefits clients and lets us provide better legal services,” Craig said. “In the legal industry, there are going to be winners and losers in this race. We will see legal industry consolidation and people will trust fewer law firms with their data and info. So there is absolutely a competitive dynamic at play here.”

To AI and beyond

According to the American Bar Association’s 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report, just 10% of lawyers polled reported using some kind of AI-based tool for work last year.

So while some firms are increasingly open to tech, not everyone is on board.

That’s where Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association president Marlon Primes comes in. Primes and the CMBA recently created the Law 2040 Task Force.

“The whole ideas with 2040 is we don’t want a technological gap,” Primes said. “If you look at some capabilities of AI, if we are not careful, we get back to the gap that occurred in the ’80s and ’90s.”

The gap Primes cited followed the advent of Westlaw and LexisNexis and how firms that didn’t get aboard with those research platforms became less competitive in the legal market.

“We want to make everybody in the community at least aware this is going to change the legal landscape,” he said. “This is where tech is going and you need to plan accordingly so you don’t miss out on the opportunity.”

While still in its early stages, the 2040 group includes a committee with eight members from a variety of firms working in Greater Cleveland. That includes Dinsmore’s Dimitrijevs.

“Some lawyers may be concerned that AI will replace lawyers in the near future,” he said. “More technologically savvy lawyers may realize that the input of experienced lawyers interacting with programmers to provide valuable data to be assessed by AI will be extremely valuable for the use of AI in the practice of law.”

Meanwhile, law schools such as Case are looking at building relevant courses and other programming into their curricula. It’s starting with educating faculty, though there are plans to roll out some sort of concentration tied to AI, perhaps a certificate.

But because the adoption of AI is expected to be gradual, the school is rolling all that out incrementally as well so there’s a place for those skills in the future.

“Within a couple of years, the market will be ready for lawyers well-trained in how to work with and program AI,” Scharf predicted. “At that point, we want our students to be among the leaders in the field.”

While the legal community braces for AI, some are simultaneously engaged in other emerging technologies.

Baker and both Case and Cleveland–Marshall law schools are involved with the region’s innovative Blockland initiative to explore how blockchain could be used in the delivery of legal services. Involvement in the blockchain initiative is also designed to help lawyers better understand uses of that technology for clients and how that intersects with the law itself.

“On the law side, there may be blockchain applications, places where a secure distributed ledger will be useful, and potential blockchain problems that will require lawyers knowledgeable about the technology,” said Case co-dean Jessica Berg, who, along with Cleveland-Marshall dean Lee Fisher, chairs the “legal node” for the Blockland iniative. “Applications include smart contracts or government databases — titles, for example. But it is too early to say whether this one technology will be revolutionary. There are a number of limitations still to be worked out.”

AI still appears to be at the front of the line to be the industry’s next great disruptor.

The strongest advice is to engage with it now lest a firm get left in the technological dust.

“It’s only disruption if you’re not paying attention,” Baker’s Craig said. “If you’re paying attention, it’s innovation.” 

 

SOURCE/LINK:

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/scott-neilson/the-state-of-legal-tech-16780/