Loading...
Several lawyers from prominent law firms have voiced their opposition to the initial proposed rule by a federal appeals court aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers appearing before it. They deem the proposed regulation as “unnecessary” and convoluted, expressing their concerns in letters made public on Monday.
Lawyers Question the Necessity of AI Regulation
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued the proposed rule in November, targeting the utilization of generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, by attorneys and litigants appearing before the court without counsel. The rule mandates certification, ensuring that citations and legal analysis were meticulously reviewed for accuracy if an AI program was employed to generate a filing.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
David Coale, a lawyer at Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann and author of the blog 600camp.com focusing on the 5th Circuit, acknowledged the potential pitfalls of generative AI, emphasizing its tendency to produce erroneous information. However, he argued that existing court rules and ethical standards already prohibit the misrepresentation of legal citations.
Existing Professional Obligations in Question
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, echoed similar sentiments, highlighting lawyers’ existing professional obligations to provide accurate arguments and citations. They emphasized the inherent authority of the court to enforce such standards without the need for additional regulation.
While most of the feedback received by the 5th Circuit opposed the proposed rule or deemed it unnecessary, some voices supported it, albeit with reservations.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Mixed Opinions on AI Regulation
Lawyers from Carlton Fields expressed concerns that the proposed rule didn’t adequately address the risks of using generative AI for legal analysis. They advocated for stricter measures, suggesting that lawyers certify their non-use of such technology altogether.
Conversely, Layne Kruse and Warren Huang from Norton Rose Fulbright highlighted the integration of AI components into traditional legal research tools like LexisNexis and Westlaw. They cautioned that overly restrictive regulations might deter attorneys from utilizing tools that could enhance their legal work and benefit the court.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
