*/
Legal innovation or risky business? asks Aaron Mayers
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stormed into the legal realm, raising exciting possibilities and some hair-raising questions. Could AI models like ChatGPT and Bard revolutionise the drafting of contracts? Or might they lead to costly errors and legal nightmares? Here’s what we know so far:
Some forward-thinking corners of the legal world are abuzz with anticipation over the potential for AI models like ChatGPT to streamline the contract drafting process. By analysing vast amounts of data and legal documents, AI can in theory draft contracts quickly and efficiently. The automation of routine legal tasks not only saves time and money but also frees up legal professionals to focus on more complex and valuable issues.
In addition, the increasing prevalence of plugins (a software component that integrates AI capabilities into an existing system or platform) means that there is a seemingly unlimited list of use cases for tools like ChatGPT. This means that integrating ChatGPT with commonly used programmes within Microsoft Office or Google Suite is just the tip of the iceberg.
AI holds a distinct edge over human lawyers in terms of speed and data processing capabilities. The ability to rapidly analyse past contracts, precedent, and legislation should in theory allow AI to draft contracts that are both legally robust and tailored to specific requirements. Moreover, the more it learns from its past work and data sources, AI can help identify potential risks, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to drafting.
As with any technological advancement – particularly those in the early stages of development – AI-driven contract drafting has its pros and cons.
The obvious pros are:
The often-overlooked cons are:
While AI models continue to improve, the prospect of flawless contract drafting remains a distant goal. AI’s capacity to evolve and learn from human input suggests that, with time, we may see AI-generated contracts that are virtually error-free. However, the ever-changing landscape of laws and regulations makes it unlikely that AI will completely replace human expertise.
In my view, the responsible use of today’s AI in drafting contracts must rely heavily on two things:
Prompting, in the context of AI, refers to providing an input, usually in the form of text, to an AI language model, which then generates a relevant response or output based on the given input. Essentially, the prompt serves as a starting point or trigger for the AI model to understand the user’s intent and respond accordingly.
Thorough and accurate prompting is essential when using AI to draft and interpret contracts, as it ensures that the AI model accurately understands the user’s intentions, requirements, and desired outcomes.
The lawyers of tomorrow will likely need to be trained in prompt engineering, because precise and clear prompts will guide AI in generating contract clauses that are legally robust, relevant, and tailored to specific needs. A well-crafted prompt reduces the risk of errors, ambiguities, or omissions, ultimately contributing to a more reliable and efficient contract drafting process.
The importance of expert human input in the creation of contracts, as opposed to relying heavily on AI, lies in several key factors:
AI models like ChatGPT present a promising future for contract drafting, with benefits such as increased efficiency, reduced errors, and greater accessibility. However, at least for now, it is essential to strike a balance between embracing these innovations and maintaining a healthy dose of human judgment. As the legal landscape evolves, combining AI-driven technology with human expertise will be crucial to navigating the complex world of contract drafting.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stormed into the legal realm, raising exciting possibilities and some hair-raising questions. Could AI models like ChatGPT and Bard revolutionise the drafting of contracts? Or might they lead to costly errors and legal nightmares? Here’s what we know so far:
Some forward-thinking corners of the legal world are abuzz with anticipation over the potential for AI models like ChatGPT to streamline the contract drafting process. By analysing vast amounts of data and legal documents, AI can in theory draft contracts quickly and efficiently. The automation of routine legal tasks not only saves time and money but also frees up legal professionals to focus on more complex and valuable issues.
In addition, the increasing prevalence of plugins (a software component that integrates AI capabilities into an existing system or platform) means that there is a seemingly unlimited list of use cases for tools like ChatGPT. This means that integrating ChatGPT with commonly used programmes within Microsoft Office or Google Suite is just the tip of the iceberg.
AI holds a distinct edge over human lawyers in terms of speed and data processing capabilities. The ability to rapidly analyse past contracts, precedent, and legislation should in theory allow AI to draft contracts that are both legally robust and tailored to specific requirements. Moreover, the more it learns from its past work and data sources, AI can help identify potential risks, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to drafting.
As with any technological advancement – particularly those in the early stages of development – AI-driven contract drafting has its pros and cons.
The obvious pros are:
The often-overlooked cons are:
While AI models continue to improve, the prospect of flawless contract drafting remains a distant goal. AI’s capacity to evolve and learn from human input suggests that, with time, we may see AI-generated contracts that are virtually error-free. However, the ever-changing landscape of laws and regulations makes it unlikely that AI will completely replace human expertise.
In my view, the responsible use of today’s AI in drafting contracts must rely heavily on two things:
Prompting, in the context of AI, refers to providing an input, usually in the form of text, to an AI language model, which then generates a relevant response or output based on the given input. Essentially, the prompt serves as a starting point or trigger for the AI model to understand the user’s intent and respond accordingly.
Thorough and accurate prompting is essential when using AI to draft and interpret contracts, as it ensures that the AI model accurately understands the user’s intentions, requirements, and desired outcomes.
The lawyers of tomorrow will likely need to be trained in prompt engineering, because precise and clear prompts will guide AI in generating contract clauses that are legally robust, relevant, and tailored to specific needs. A well-crafted prompt reduces the risk of errors, ambiguities, or omissions, ultimately contributing to a more reliable and efficient contract drafting process.
The importance of expert human input in the creation of contracts, as opposed to relying heavily on AI, lies in several key factors:
AI models like ChatGPT present a promising future for contract drafting, with benefits such as increased efficiency, reduced errors, and greater accessibility. However, at least for now, it is essential to strike a balance between embracing these innovations and maintaining a healthy dose of human judgment. As the legal landscape evolves, combining AI-driven technology with human expertise will be crucial to navigating the complex world of contract drafting.
Legal innovation or risky business? asks Aaron Mayers
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions