By: Aaron Eberle The spring and summer buying season is in full bloom in the American real estate industry, a time of year when lawyers who advise clients in real estate transactions tend to be busier...
The arrival of Pride Month in June is an annual reminder of the importance of workforce diversity and creating a safe place for people of all backgrounds to contribute to the success of their organizations...
By Elias Kahn | LexisNexis Practical Guidance The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finally delivered on a long-awaited order when it issued a final rule on April 23, 2024, that bans most noncompete agreements...
In-house counsel are faced with a dizzying array of labor and employment law issues on a regular basis, but one of them stands out by far as the source of the biggest headaches that keep them up at night...
By: Karen Hay The foundation of accurate legal research is ensuring that your citations are good law. Citing outdated, overruled or irrelevant cases not only weakens your credibility and undermines your...
Updated November 20, 2023
Summary:
At LexisNexis, we have not been subtle about our views regarding the impact artificial intelligence (AI) is having — and will continue to have — on the practice of law. We’ve discussed a myriad of AI-related topics, including:
While we believe we are an authoritative source for all things legal, we understand that attorneys give considerable weight to the opinions of judges. So, when we heard that Justice A.C.R. Whitten of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice mentioned artificial intelligence in a decision, we were intrigued.
The decision concerned a request for attorneys’ fees and expenses by defendant, Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation (PDVC). The court granted summary judgment in PDVC’s favor against a woman who sued PDVC after she slipped and fell at an Ontario bar for which PDVC was the landlord. The bar, My Cottage BBQ and Brew, defaulted in the case. In his ruling, Justice Whitten mentioned that the use of AI in legal research would have reduced the amount of time one of the attorneys for the defendant would have spent preparing his client’s case.
So, how should attorneys respond to this statement?
We'll help you answer that question by:
Justice Whitten was not impressed by PDVC’s request for fees. He began his analysis by asking why two attorneys represented PDVC in a lawsuit that was “not so complex that there would be any need for a division of labour.” He challenged the need for the attorneys to spend 26.5 hours defending a pro forma motion to amend a pleading. He further questioned why an attorney requested a fee for two court hearings that were handled by a law student. And, he thought the 80 hours spent preparing a summary judgment motion was excessive, noting that 20 to 30 hours would have been more acceptable.
Justice Whitten was similarly unimpressed by the defendant’s request for about $24,000 in expenses. He trimmed a reimbursement request for a medical opinion by 50 percent (from $10,000 to $5,000).
Next, Justice Whitten turned to the defendant’s request for $900 in research-related expenses. And that’s where we encounter the topic of AI. The judge questioned the need for the legal research given the nature of the case and what was being researched. He ultimately denied the $900 request. But not before he said the following:
“If artificial intelligence sources were employed, no doubt counsel’s preparation time would have been significantly reduced.”
He then moved on to address (and ultimately reject) the defendant’s request for reimbursement of $5,500 in costs awarded against the defendant earlier in the litigation for questionable litigation behavior.
What is most striking — and most promising — about Justice Whitten’s reference to AI is how matter-of-fact it was.
Justice Whitten’s nonchalant reference to using AI in legal research, and his choice to not go into further detail about AI, is exactly how a lawyer would expect a judge to speak about a well-established legal tool for which no further explanation is necessary.
When we first discussed Justice Whitten's 2018 remarks, artificial intelligence was just beginning to take the industry by storm. While his words could be taken as a passing statement, experts felt they indicated an overall awareness from judges regarding emerging technologies. After all, AI-enhanced research platforms like Lexis+ were on the horizon, and ABM would pay a specific focus to AI in their annual Legal Technology Report the following year (reporting that only 8% of attorneys were using AI at the time!).
AI didn't stop there, however. The past several years have witnessed a rapid increase in the availability and capabilities of AI. Most notably, generative AI (such as ChatGPT) has taken the world the by storm — and some experts feel attorneys have a professional responsibility to become familiar with the technology. At the same time, experts recognize there are ethical considerations to bear in mind when using something like a GPT-powered chatbot; furthermore, the "bots" flooding the market can't replace lawyers (at least, not in the foreseeable future).
So what does all of this mean?
At the very least, attorneys should become familiar with AI-enhanced research technology, answering Justice Whitten's call for increased efficiency (and client satisfaction). Additionally, all legal professionals should seek out opportunities to learn about what's next for legal research and the industry as a whole.
Access the Report
Artificial intelligence can be an invaluable tool when you learn to use it to the best of its capabilities. With a range of reliable AI offerings, LexisNexis is here to help you advance your firm's legal research to the next level. Learn more about Lexis+ AI.