AI turbocharges litigation powers – Financial Times

This post was originally published on this site.

Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel faced a daunting deadline after taking on 3D printing company Desktop Metal as a client in January. They had less than two months to digest more than 70,000 documents and prepare for a trial with Nano Dimension, which was trying to back out of a deal to buy its rival.

But the attorneys also had an edge: access to artificial intelligence tools that allowed them to create a detailed chronology, refine the arguments, and find weaknesses in their opponent’s case.

“We knew we had to move fast and couldn’t let a day go by with anything left undone,” says Christopher Kercher, a Quinn Emanuel partner in New York who founded the firm’s AI group. “AI isn’t the be-all, end-all. It’s not letting us push a button and go to the beach. But it’s a great tool to make us better at our jobs.”

Kercher and his colleagues are not alone. Law firms are relying increasingly on AI to accelerate mundane tasks and stay a step ahead of their adversaries. The fast-moving technology is helping lawyers analyse judges’ opinions, zero in on evidence in a mountain of data, draft documents, and unlock a host of other efficiencies.

However, AI also introduces new risks. “The old tools we’ve had — big deal — that’s like driving around in your Honda Accord,” says Robert Couture, senior research fellow at Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession. “This is like giving someone an F1 race car. If you don’t want to crash on the first turn, you better know what you’re doing.”

Another firm, WilmerHale, has focused on depositions, deploying an in-house AI tool called Finch.

A typical case might involve 20 to 40 depositions, each generating 300 pages of transcripts or more. But after ingesting those documents, Finch can field questions about critical details of the case, allowing lawyers to accomplish in a matter of minutes what would have taken a few hours, says Jeffrey Dennhardt, a partner at the firm, based in New York.

“It takes you to the heart of the matter — you can focus your efforts on the strategy, how to craft the best legal argument, and how to write the most persuasive brief,” he says. “We are seeing much more rapid advancement than we might have predicted a couple of years ago.”

Lawyers at Willkie Farr & Gallagher saved more than 500 hours of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in a case that led to a $1.1bn judgment against Iran for state-sponsored terrorist attacks on US soldiers and civilians, says John Elbasan, the firm’s chief information officer. Lawyers relied on AI tools to collect, review, and draft the declarations of families and civilians, a laborious and emotionally difficult process, he says.

Law firms are now using AI tools more broadly. Legal professionals expect AI will save them about 240 hours per year, according to a survey published this year by Thomson Reuters. The combined annual impact could be $20bn.

While law firms recognise the potential of AI, they are also conscious of the pitfalls. Lawyers worry about jeopardising confidentiality, but accuracy is seen as a greater risk, according to a recent survey by the American Bar Association. 

Instances of lawyers submitting briefs containing fictitious legal citations generated by AI tools have sparked embarrassing headlines, as well as warnings and sanctions from judges.

In one example, a lawyer representing AI company Anthropic in a copyright lawsuit over music lyrics admitted to incorporating an incorrect footnote caused by an AI “hallucination”. And Damien Charlotin, a legal researcher in Paris, has created a list of hundreds of cases globally involving hallucinated content.

“There’s an arms race at the moment, where everyone is touting all these tools that we’re able to use, but I think there also remains some scepticism, both from lawyers, who tend to be risk averse, and from some of our clients who are concerned about what they’re seeing out there,” says Dennhardt of WilmerHale.

There’s an arms race at the moment . . . but I think there also remains some scepticism

Law firms are trying to bring in some safeguards. Quinn Emanuel assigns a “verifier”, typically a junior lawyer, to check AI outputs and flag any potential hallucinations. Willkie puts “transparency” at the heart of its strategy, ensuring every party is aware of when and how AI is being used. 

Increased co-operation between in-house counsel, outside law firms, and technology vendors — sparked by the rise of AI — is also helping to reduce risks, according to Couture. As AI becomes smarter, lawyers will need to “argue” with the technology to challenge its findings, he adds.

Quinn Emanuel’s reliance on AI helped Desktop Metal win its case, forcing Nano Dimension to complete the deal. The tool was able to identify weak claims rapidly, enabling the firm to draft a detailed motion within 24 hours.

In another case involving a Chinese company, the law firm turned to AI to analyse large volumes of WhatsApp and WeChat messages and map how they linked up against contracts and financial records to “pressure-test” both sides’ arguments, Kercher says.

Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei earlier this year warned AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs by 2030, predicting that fields such as law, finance, and tech would be disrupted. Yet there is growing support for the use of AI in legal firms, where many partners expect it to redefine roles rather than replace them. 

“I’m pretty confident judges are not going to want to hear from robot lawyers, and clients are not going to want to bring their biggest problems to robots,” Kercher says.

“We’re going to be the ones standing up in court. If it makes our jobs easier and gets clients relief, that’s a home run.”