Channel 4 pits AI against trainee solicitor in legal drafting showdown

So, let me get this straight… the conclusion is (as expected, and as we’ve been stating for some time now) that AI can make a (potentially really) good draft, but only a human can tell whether the draft is really good or not.

So the focus simply changes and people will still need lawyers.

Good.

From my experience using ‘AI’ tools, I haven’t been overly impressed and have had to substantively amend the output. That may be circumstantial and keen to hear other peoples’ experience.

There are also continuing issues with: the processing of client/confidential information that cannot be input into any random AI tool / cyber security; concerns over AI manufacturing false cases/information (which has been reported a couple of times now); and who takes on Professional Indemnity responsibility (if the AI tool is likely to miss key information, who’s picking up that responsibility?).

In a small claim, I can certainly see the benefit when faced with fixed costs regimes, but open it up to much larger claims, can these tools deal with the grey areas and nuances that lawyers are often faced with? Given the option of £100 AI bill, or a £5,000 lawyer bill backed by appropriate PI – and where we are informed the latter will produce a better result, I’d likely take the latter and minimise risk to avoid a potentially hefty dispute down the line that ends up costing hundreds of thousands.

It seems to me that much of the hyperbole is coming from those trying to sell the AI products and that expectations don’t necessarily live up to reality at present… that’s not to say it won’t and continuing to develop these tools can only be a useful thing in terms of time efficiency. But certainly seems to me there is still work to be done.