What do you think was the biggest legal change in

recent years and what do you think about it?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged aggressively in the world of technology in the last
couple of years. It has been since incorporated in every area of work and industry from
agriculture to medicine and law not being an exception. The increasing accessibility of the
technology to the open public has caused the legal world to question its stability and its
regulations. The Uk, as a leading country in Artificial Intelligence Technology has ranked
number 3 overall in its development but only 23 in governmental strategies. This highlighting
a premature technology that has been neglected by the Parliament and other legal
commissioners when it comes to its regulations. This being an inappropriate response of a
government stressed to win a race in development and maximise the expansion of the
technology, unaware of the opportunity cost of data and public safety.
I am going to provide some arguments that will highlight my confidence on AI being the
biggest and most complex change the legal industry has had to adapt to and implement into
its practices in a pressuring time. The constant need of new regulations to an ever-changing
technology that has the potential to be beneficial as much as destructive. I will focus on the
proposed European Commission Artificial Intelligence Act as well as key legislation
concepts from Intellectual Property and General Data Protection Act, which AI technology
usage over-crosses. Apart from the legislation I will also emphasize the usage of AI in
collecting case evidence and how it might become impossible to distinct between
unquestionable evidence and fake evidence in court as well as how law firms could use this
technology to improve their service.
The EU Commission has proposed in its Artificial Intelligence Act some restrictions that
organisations should have when using AI, especially in strict areas such as legal work. For
example, Artificial facial recognition to identify criminals from a crowd which has not given
its consent. This may affect how certain evidence made and processed by AI would be
admissible to court cases in near future. Additionally, generative AI has evolved to a point in
which it can generate accurate face and voice content. Apps such's as llElevenLabs has
created an AI that can copy the voice of any person from only 25 voice recordings. It can
then generate voice recordings with the individuals voice using a text-speech system. The
match being identical in pitch, tone, and accent. Vocal evidence has not been questioned
before in the field at such a level. These technologies have changed therefore the credibility
of certain types of evidence in court and new regulation and guidelines are needed to monitor
their validity.
However, it is important to consider that while regulations such as the EU Commision’s
Artificial Intelligence Act could reduce the risk of ethical concerns, it may not be sufficient to
address all ethical concerns. While regulations can set guidelines for the use of AI, the
technology is advancing at a much faster pace than any regulatory system can monitor. For
example, they cannot predict that AI face and voice mirroring technologies will not become
even more subtle and harder to detect. Additionally, the practical implementation of such
regulations will require many professionals in the field to reinforce the rules. AI organisations
may still therefore find ways to avoid regulations on their technology. Therefore, while
regulations are well needed in the field in way to give some guidance on how the legal
system should address AI, their level of protection against misuse of the technology is
questionable due to its nature. Although, even if the technology would be challenging to
monitor, the need of regulations and especially ethical guidelines is rising. Regulations and
guidelines should still be made while ensuring they are flexible and constantly changed with
the technology or alternatively the technology evolution is stopped by governmental
institutions until it has been regulated at its current level.
The potential of AI improving any field of work's efficiently is without a doubt above the
human capacity of handling work. Legal firms and professionals could benefit vastly of the
use of AI when it comes to tedious work such as legal research or document reviewing. Legal
research software allows lawyers to quickly scan and search large databases of regulations,
statutes, practice areas, jurisdictions, case law, etc Any machine especially one such as AI
that adapts though its extensive usage can be used to improve accuracy when analysing data
in transactional and financial law. When a company is considering a merger or acquisition,
there may be hundreds or even thousands of contracts and other legal documents to review
during due diligence. By using AI to analyse this data, lawyers can quickly identify potential
issues or risks that may impact the deal, allowing them to make more informed decisions and
negotiate more effectively on behalf of their client. Clients will receive better outcomes in
their cases with less resources used, saving costs for both the client as well as the law firm on
labour fees. Leading law firms such as Shearman & Sterling, White & Case, and Orrick have
already implemented AI into their Mergers and Acquisitions departments due to its efficiency
and flexibility post-pandemic. Therefore, this shows how beneficial implementation of such
technology can be for legal firms if kept under.
However, while AI can improve the efficiency and accuracy of legal proceedings, it is
important to consider the potential consequences of AI usage in these areas. AI software is
unlikely to understand the delicate details of legal analysis which could lead to wrongful and
incomplete legal interpretations. Additionally, it will be difficult to understand the process
behind the decision-making process. This will make it difficult to identify transparency and
accountability in the case of errors or biases. This lack of transparency could therefore ruin
the credibility and reputation of legal firms and professionals. I believe that with the right
monitoring and investigation behind the process, the benefits of improving work efficiency
will still be more significant than its drawbacks.
Recently, there have been developments in the UK regarding inventions created by
computers and whether these inventions can be protected with patents. The current situation
is that patent protection is unavailable. However, ongoing debates surround this, including a
consultation led by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a consultation
led by the UK Intellectual Property Office (the UK IPO). In December 2019, the UK IPO
found that DABUS, an AI machine, is not a person and cannot be considered an inventor of a
patent. In September 2020, the situation was confirmed by the High Court. The High Court
found that even if DABUS is an inventor, there was no valid chain of title from DABUS to
the human applicant, even though the human applicant is the owner of DABUS. The UK
Court of Appeal confirmed on September 21, 2021, that inventors must be human beings.
I also believe Artificial intelligence (AI) has put pressure on intellectual property (IP) laws
and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws. Currently, artists do not have the
choice to opt into the database or have their work removed. Opt-in and opt-out regimes are
set clearly in both the UK, other EU countries, and the US. art prints and posters. In the case
of Greg Rutkowski, his name and art style has been copyrighted yet the AI has been trained
without his knowledge on his work. His name being the most used prompt, along with well-
known painters like Picasso. The Stable Diffusion, an AI company that creates datasets, has
scraped many artworks from Art Station, a website where lots of artists upload their online
portfolios which are copyrighted.
With all the arguments presented, I believe Artificial Intelligence has been the most notable
change the legal sector has had to adapt and implement. AI has presented both benefits and
challenges. AI has the potential to improve work efficiency, saving time and money for legal
firms and their clients. However, the use of AI in legal proceedings requires regulations to
ensure its ethical use and protection of public safety. The proposed European Commission
Artificial Intelligence Act is a step in the right direction, but it may not be sufficient to
address all ethical concerns. While regulations are well needed in the field to give some
guidance on how the legal system should address AI, their level of protection against misuse
of the technology is questionable due to its nature. More consideration is needed for IP law
and data protection when it comes to this technology. Nonetheless, the benefits of AI in legal
practice have evolved legal practice significantly as well as pressuring it to debate further
changes for it to welcome AI technology appropriately.