Skip main navigation

AI and the practice of law

Following is the reading of AI and the practice of law.
books and coffee
© Agnieszka McPeak

In this activity, we’ll be talking about “AI and the practice of law.”

Please download and read this article below, and we will discuss this topic via the audio lecture in the following steps.

Abstract

Technology is changing both the substance of lawyers’ work and the modes of delivering legal services. Lawyers, as facilitators of their clients’ innovations, help propel new technology into the mainstream. At the same time, the practice of law itself is subject to myriad rules and regulations. Innovation in the legal profession, such as advancements in the tools for delivering legal services, directly impacts lawyers and the way they work. The legal ethics rules and substantive law dictating lawyer conduct now expressly require a duty of technological competence. This duty of technological competence has come about at a time when innovation, often fueled by artificial intelligence, has produced new legal technology, or “lawtech.” Lawtech developments require lawyers to adapt the very tools of their trade in order to stay competent.

This Article first defines disruptive technology, both as to innovation relevant to clients who may be tech disruptors and as to lawtech that lawyers may be using in their own practice. It defines the ethical pitfalls of both aspects of disruptive technology, starting with the potential pitfalls of representing tech disruptor clients, including the risk of over-association with the client or engaging in illegal or extra-legal activity in the name of innovation. It then shifts to discussing the ethical pitfalls tech-averse lawyers face and urges lawyers to allow new technology to augment and improve the practice of law itself. New technology is good for the legal profession, on the whole, and lawyers can be a part of the disruption while remaining within their ethical bounds.

Full article McPeak, Agnieszka, Disruptive Technology and the Ethical Lawyer (April 19, 2019). University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 50, 2019, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3374961

Page 462, 463, 464 465 are are helpful to answer the quiz, and Page 469 (or footnote 96), 470, 472, 473 are conductive to the final test.

© Agnieszka McPeak
This article is from the free online

AI for Legal Professionals (I): Law and Policy

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the world. These are delivered one step at a time, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, so you can fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should be an enjoyable, social experience, so our courses offer the opportunity to discuss what you’re learning with others as you go, helping you make fresh discoveries and form new ideas.
You can unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited package. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education