England and Wales have taken a step forward in embracing artificial intelligence (AI) in their legal system. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has granted judges permission to use AI to assist in producing rulings, though with certain limitations. The judiciary clarified that AI could be used to write opinions, but cautioned against using it for research or legal analyses due to the potential for fabricating information and providing misleading and biased results. This cautious approach is understandable, given the ongoing debate surrounding AI regulation and concerns about keeping humans involved in the judicial process.
Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, the second-highest ranking judge in England and Wales, emphasized the need for judges to protect confidence in their decisions and take personal responsibility for everything they produce when using AI. “There’s a vigorous public debate right now about whether and how to regulate artificial intelligence,” said law professor Ryan Abbott. “AI and the judiciary is something people are uniquely concerned about, and it’s somewhere where we are particularly cautious about keeping humans in the loop.”
Legal experts have praised the judiciary for recognizing the importance of addressing the latest advances in AI. The guidance provided by England and Wales sets them among the forefront of courts dealing with AI, although other countries have previously issued similar regulations. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe, for example, issued an ethical charter on the use of AI in court systems five years ago. While that document is not up to date with the latest technology, it did establish core principles such as accountability and risk mitigation for judges to follow.
In contrast, the United States has not yet established formal guidance on AI in its federal court system, although individual courts and judges may have their own rules. Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, noted that the guidance for England and Wales is likely the first published set of AI-related guidelines in the English language that broadly applies to judges. However, there is still room for improvement. Some critics questioned why judges are not required to disclose their use of AI and called for an accountability mechanism to be implemented.
The guidance provided by the courts emphasizes the acceptance of AI while cautioning against fully embracing it. It contains numerous warnings about the limitations of AI and the potential problems that could arise if users are unaware of its capabilities. For instance, judges were warned about the use of chatbots, such as ChatGPT, which gained attention for its ability to generate text. The guidance advised judges not to disclose private or confidential information to such chatbots, as any information entered into a public AI chatbot would essentially be published for the world to see.
Despite the limitations, the courts acknowledge that AI can be a valuable secondary tool for judges who frequently write lengthy decisions. AI can assist in finding and summarizing background information that judges are already familiar with, saving them time and effort. Appeals Court Justice Colin Birss praised how ChatGPT helped him write a paragraph in a recent ruling. He asked the chatbot for a summary of a specific area of law and used its response in his judgment, considering it a useful tool.
The initiative taken by England and Wales shows that they are taking steps to adapt to the advancements in AI without compromising the integrity of their legal system. While caution is always necessary, embracing technology can help improve efficiency and assist judges in their work. As the debate surrounding AI continues, it is important to strike a balance that allows for the benefits of AI while preserving trust in the legal system.
Use the share button below if you liked it.