Author: Eimear Mccann

Generative AI has taken the world by storm. The impact on knowledge driven tasks and work is expected to be huge.

At the same time and with less attention, predictive modelling of litigation has been advancing significantly. Solomonic has been developing forecasting models using structured data that show high degrees of accuracy and indicate the ability to predict not only outcomes, but duration, and possibly arguments in the future.

The advances we are seeing are happening very quickly and pose a significant set of challenges for lawyers, their roles, and the future courtroom.

On 8th December 2023, Solomonic and TrialView joined forces to host an online discussion on the topic. We assembled a panel of leading practitioners and innovators, to explore how practitioners can not only think more creatively, but indeed thrive, in a landscape of AI and data-driven prediction.

Brian Perrott, Partner and Head of Innovation at HFW; Chris Dryland, Legal Director at Innovation award winning firm Pinsent Masons; and Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel and CEO of TrialView, engaged in a thought-provoking panel, covering the full spectrum of potential shifts in the disputes sector.

AI: From Prep to Hearing

The session opened with a discussion on the revolutionary potential of AI. As a language-based technology, AI’s prowess in manipulating, understanding, and predicting language is positioned to be a game-changer in the preparation stages of litigation. AI’s ability to handle and analyse vast amounts of data surrounding disputes promises a significant transformation in how legal professionals approach and manage evidence, and caseloads.

Dowling noted, “If you think about any event that occurs these days, particularly in commercial litigation, it is surrounded by and immersed in some kind of data trail – chains of emails, Slack messages, WhatsApp, letters, bodies of correspondence. That job we do as litigators where we are parsing information down will be radically transformed by AI.”

This capacity for data analysis, including pattern recognition and language understanding, is predicted to play a pivotal role in building compelling cases, and feeding into strategic legal decisions.  Whilst the implications of AI are all pervasive, flowing from early case management through to the courtroom, our panel collectively opined that the human touch will remain imperative in advocacy and persuasion.

Litigation Risk and Settlement

A central theme of the discussion was the potential of AI to mitigate litigation risk. Leveraging insights and patterns from data has the potential to completely transform the dynamics of dispute resolution, offering some sense of predictability in a fluctuating legal sector.

Perrott explained, “If you can focus on reducing the risk and making things more predictable, then the logical conclusion is that people would settle disputes because the answer is clearer, and the outcome is easier to predict. Solomonic is creating a new galaxy of opportunity, with data, looking at the performance of experts, judges, barristers, the past record. Of course, that doesn’t always inform the future, but it helps.”

By encouraging a culture of always thinking about how to make litigation less unpredictable, it was felt that we could see speedier resolution; conversely, panellists explored the concept that increased predictability may alleviate the fear associated with going to trial, with the potential to inflate litigation.

AI’s Role in Witness Preparation

The panellists delved into AI’s impact on witness preparation, highlighting the potential for real-time analysis of statements, identifying inconsistencies, and enhancing overall preparation processes. While AI brings efficiency to the preparation phase, it was felt that human judgment remains crucial in assessing witness performance and making strategic decisions during trial.

Dryland emphasised, “It is that human element which is irreplaceable by AI. It is really important that be elevated in terms of how we think witnesses will perform in the witness box, and tactical issues in terms of when to settle.”

Challenges and Considerations

The webinar addressed various challenges associated with the integration of AI in dispute resolution, including accountability for erroneous findings, and the need for human expertise in directing AI tools. Notably, panellists discussed the evolving nature of economic models in the legal profession, asking whether law firms should charge clients specifically for AI services, and whether AI could finally be the catalyst to shift away from the billable hour. The consensus emerged that the value brought by litigators will require a radical change in the face of AI and data prediction.

Predictions for the future

The panellists envisioned a future where AI is viewed through a collaborative lens, leading to more efficient trial preparation, shorter proceedings, and increased access to justice by reducing overall litigation costs. Whether the courtroom of the future will comprise of a robo-judge or clerk was still up for much debate. The need for responsible use, human expertise and a very thoughtful approach to evolving technology ranked high. We were left with a lot of food for thought, including the pertinent question, with the inexorable acceleration of AI universally, will lawyers share the risks with clients, if this means saving on time and costs?

Ultimately, it was agreed that AI and data prediction are integral to the future of the legal landscape. Practitioners seeking to stay at the forefront will recognise the need for adaptability and strategic utilisation of these tools now.

Perrott summarised, “I would encourage all those litigators, if they haven’t discovered a world of data prediction, to make it part of your litigation DNA, because it’s here to stay, and I find it very useful.”

Access the full webinar recording on this link.

 

New guidance, published on 12th December 2023, produced by a cross-jurisdictional group, aims to assist judicial office holders in relation to the use of AI in litigation. It sets out key risks and issues, with some suggestions for mitigation.

New Judicial Guidance on the use of AI in Litigation

The topic of AI in litigation continues to gain traction in the legal industry, and it is inevitable that it will have an increasingly important role in the future.

There are numerous benefits to the use of AI in litigation, from streamlining document review and enhanced case prediction to increased efficiency – all of which is saving legal professionals significant amounts of time and money.

However, the rise of artificial intelligence in litigation of course brings with it challenges as well as opportunities, which is why new guidance published by a cross-jurisdictional group, has been produced to assist judicial office holders and advise on the use of AI.

The guidance sets out key risks and issues, with some suggestions for mitigation:

4 key issues surrounding the use of AI in litigation

1. Confidentiality and prudent use

The guidance does not specifically mandate the disclosure of the use of AI tools in research/judgments, “provided these guidelines are appropriately followed, there is no reason why generative AI could not be a potentially useful secondary tool.”

Judges are directed towards paid services, though this is presented more as a recommendation than a requirement.

To uphold the integrity of the judicial process, judges are explicitly instructed not to enter confidential or private information into public AI systems.

Any errors of this nature are to be reported promptly as data incidents or breaches, highlighting the importance of maintaining a secure and confidential environment.

2. Supervision and responsibility

While AI serves as a valuable tool, the guidance underscores the personal responsibility of judges for the outcomes produced.

In addition, it also calls for judges to supervise the use of AI by their clerks or assistants, ensuring that the technology is applied judiciously and ethically.

3. AI as a tool for “non-definitive confirmation”

The guidance also provides a nuanced perspective on AI tools, suggesting that they are best seen as a means of obtaining non-definitive confirmation rather than immediately correct facts.

This cautious approach acknowledges the evolving nature of AI technology and the need for validation in judicial decision-making.

4. Potential applications of AI

Three potential use cases for AI, in a judicial context, are set out within the guidance:

Summarise

AI tools are capable of summarising large bodies of text. As with any summary, care needs to be taken to ensure the summary is accurate.

Create

AI tools can be used in writing presentations, e.g. to provide suggestions for topics to cover.

Admin

Administrative tasks, such as composing emails and memoranda, can be performed by AI.

Areas where caution is advised

The guidance advises against using AI for detailed legal research, analysis, and reasoning, recognising the limitations of the technology in this remit.

Raising awareness of risks

The guidance extends beyond the judiciary, seeking to raise awareness of potential risks for parties and their representatives. Concerns such as forgery, deepfakes, and hallucinated legal authorities are highlighted.

Additionally, -the document emphasises that, for some unrepresented litigants, AI chatbots might be their only recourse, underscoring the need for caution and an understanding of the technology’s limitations.

The full guidance can be found here, and whilst worth a read, this likely represents a foundation for an evolving set of guidelines for judges in the future.

Need further advice about AI in litigation?

Although there is much to consider when it comes to the use of AI in litigation, AI tools can have a huge impact on efficiency.

AI tools such as TrialView can not only streamline document retrieval and organisation but also enhance collaboration, compliance, and the overall strategic approach to legal proceedings, allowing you to work with enhanced speed and efficiency for every aspect of your case.

AI tools such as data recognition, smart pagination, de-duplication, and auto-indexing can ensure your bundles can be organised quickly and easily, whilst fast and efficient bundle creation enables you to work smarter, not harder and focus on outcomes rather than preparation.

If you’d like to learn more about the benefits of AI in litigation, book a tailored demo or alternatively contact our team to find out more.

Electronic ways of working in litigation feels very much like the norm, but there are hidden considerations in the features you may take for granted.

Electronic ways of working in litigation are more common than ever, but as digital methods become increasingly normal, we are beginning to see the hidden benefits of using workspaces and digital tools are starting to come to the fore.

Features such as search, tagging, automatic date detection, and indexing are essential components in any bundling tool, expediting the process, saving cost, and ensuring you adhere to the latest court guidelines.

What is a court bundle?

Court bundles include copies of all the documentation needed in legal proceedings. It ensures that each party has identical copies of all the relevant documents in a case.

Traditionally, court bundles have been hard copies. However, electronic court bundling software is often more beneficial than creating multiple copies, ensuring rapid upload and date detection to make the entire process more efficient.

But what about the hidden benefits that are often overlooked? And why should you consider going digital for hearing prep?

3 hidden benefits of electronic bundling explained

1. Search functionality

With TrialView, our intelligent search functionality allows users to quickly locate specific documents within a large electronic bundle. This efficient retrieval is essential for time-sensitive tasks during litigation, and having the capacity to find a fact or a document in seconds is indispensable.

In addition, searching electronically eliminates the need to manually sift through extensive document sets, saving valuable time and reducing the risk of oversights. Your client will thank you, on both counts.

Finally, with electronic bundling, analysis is simply more efficient. Searching for specific terms, phrases, or keywords facilitates the identification of patterns and trends in the data set, making analysis easier than ever before – much more so than when working with boxes of paper files!

2. Tagging

With electronic bundling, you are able to tag documents with relevant keywords or categories. This enhances the organisational structure of the electronic bundle, ultimately making it easier for legal professionals to categorise and retrieve documents efficiently.

Tags can be customised based on the unique needs of each case, facilitating a tailored system which aligns with the nuances and complexities of the litigation.

Plus, tagging promotes collaboration within legal teams by providing a standardised method for categorising and referencing documents. This fosters consistency and clarity in communication, ultimately resulting in more streamlined processes.

3. Accurate dating

Organising documents by date is critical for presenting a chronological sequence of events, augmenting the understand of the timeline of the case, identifying key milestones, and helpful in establishing causation.

Not only that, but dates are also essential for constructing a timeline of events, which is particularly valuable in litigation for presenting a clear and compelling narrative to the court.

Another benefit of efficient and accurate date information is the ability to adhere to court-imposed deadlines and legal procedures. We all know that failure to meet deadlines carries serious implications – so accurate dating is essential to the smooth running of cases.

Experience the benefits of TrialView electronic bundling

The features outlined above may sound trivial, but they can have a huge impact on the effective management and analysis of electronic bundles in litigation.

These features not only streamline document retrieval and organisation but also enhance collaboration, compliance, and the overall strategic approach to legal proceedings, allowing you to work with speed and efficiency for every aspect of your case.

Whether you are working from Excel, PDF, Word, or even email, TrialView’s award-winning bundling software enables fast and efficient bundle creation so you can work smarter, not harder.

Plus, advanced AI tools such as data recognition, smart pagination, de-duplication, and auto-indexing also ensure your bundles can be organised quickly and easily

Why not join other legal teams and go digital with TrialView? To find out more about the benefits, book a tailored demo or alternatively contact our team to find out more.

How can litigators think creatively and independently in the world of artificial intelligence and data-driven prediction?

Join Solomonic and TrialView on Friday, 8th December at 9am for a virtual panel discussion on the Future of the Courtroom: Embracing AI & data-driven prediction in litigation.

Our expert panel includes Senior Counsel and our TrialView founder Stephen Dowling SC, HFW partner Brian Perrott, and Pinsent Masons legal director Christopher Dryland, who will discuss the evolving role of the litigator, and the opportunities to leverage data and AI. This is going to be a powerhouse panel discussion that will explore how a creative mindset will ultimately empower litigators to adapt and thrive.

Register your place here.  We hope you can join us.

 

 

The Irish Commercial Court recently released guidelines on the use of electronic books.

With regulations surrounding the continued need for hard copy books, the means of transmission, and the format of electronic court books, navigating new court bundle guidance can be challenging.

This handy guide provides a quick overview of the new guidelines and explains how using TrialView for bundling ensures you don’t need to worry about compliance.

How to Lodge Electronic Books According to Court Bundle Guidance

According to the new guidelines, PDF booklets can be submitted through the mechanism of ShareFile in accordance with the Transmission Protocol and File Naming Protocol.

Transmission Protocol

• The guidance surrounding the Transmission Protocol can be summarised as follows:
• Failure to adhere to the process outlined in the Protocol may result in suspension of a practitioners ShareFile account with the Courts Service.
• Each practitioner wishing to participate in the use of ShareFile is required to access via email (commercialcourt-courts.ie)
• All electronic books should be made available in electronic format in advance of the hearing. ShareFile is used to electronically provide the electronic books to the Court.
• The deadline for electronic books for motions and trials remain 4.30pm on the Wednesday of the preceding week. It may take up to 1 business day to set up a new ShareFile.
• All electronic books should be submitted in PDF format and be clearly marked with relevant identifying case details. The PDF electronic books should be duly paginated and with indices that contain hyperlinks to each document.
• Each practitioner or unrepresented litigant shall have one email address used for ShareFile. May take up to 1 business day from the receipt of the request to add the practitioner to the ShareFile system.
• The practitioner or unrepresented litigant may use ShareFile to file electronic books with a court only after the Courts Service has accepted them as an authorised filer.

Download the guide here.

How can TrialView help?

If you are struggling with electronic books and court bundling, electronic bundling has numerous benefits.

TrialView court bundling software integrates with your existing document management systems and enables you to upload multiple file types and create your electronic books in seconds.

Additionally, smart pagination, automatic indexing and date detection ensure seamless organisation, whilst hyperlinks can also be created on your PDF booklets enabling the Court and legal team to instantly access all material.

Why not get in touch to find out how TrialView can expediate the bundling process and ensure you’re completely compliant with the new Guidelines?

Discover court bundling made easy with TrialView. Book a demo today to discover the benefits for yourself.

BOOK DEMO

The Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center is working towards publishing Guidelines on the use of AI in international arbitration. George Agnew provides an overview below.

Generative AI continues to gain traction in the legal industry, including in arbitration.

Despite the numerous benefits of arbitration software and AI, the rise of artificial intelligence brings with it challenges in addition to opportunities, which is why the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center is planning to publish guidelines on the use of AI in international arbitration.

The guidelines seek to establish a set of general principles for the use of AI in arbitration, and are intended to guide rather than dictate. They do not intend to replace or override local AI laws of regulations.

An overview of the SVAMC Guidelines

The SVAMC Guideline are split into three chapters:

1) Guidelines applicable to all participants in international arbitration
2) Guidelines for parties and party representatives
3) Guidelines for arbitrators

Chapter 1: Guidelines applicable to all participants in international arbitration

Guideline 1: Understanding the uses, limitations and risks of AI applications

The AI tool’s terms of use and data handling policies need to be reviewed by participants to understand if the tool’s data treatment is consistent with applicable confidentiality, privacy or data security obligations.

Participants should make reasonable efforts to understand the functionality, limitations and risks of the AI tools used in preparation for or during the course of an arbitration proceeding. This includes the following:

• “Black-box” problem: Text produced by Generative AI is a product of complex probabilistic calculations rather than intelligible “reasoning”. AI lacks ability to explain their own algorithms. Where possible, participants should therefore use AI tools and applications that allow them to understand how a particular output was generated (“Explainable AI”).
• AI tools may not be well-suited for tasks requiring specialised knowledge or case-specific information unless they are fine-tuned or provided with more relevant data.
• Errors or “hallucinations”: This will occur when AI lacks information to provide an accurate response to a particular query. Errors can be reduced through “prompt engineering” and “retrieval-augmented generation”.
• Augmentation of biases: Biases may occur when the underrepresentation of certain groups of individuals is carried over to the training data used by the AI tool to make selections or assessments. Participants are urged to exercise extreme caution when using AI tools for this purpose.

Compliant: Using AI to conduct research on potential arbitrators or experts for a case
Non-Compliant: Using it to select arbitrators or experts for a case without human input

Guideline 2: Safeguarding confidentiality

Need to ensure use of AI tools is consistent with obligations to safeguard confidential information. Confidential information should not be submitted to any AI tools without appropriate vetting and authorisation.

Participants should review the date use and retention policies offered by the relevant AI tools.

Compliant: Using AI for routine non-confidential tasks e.g., meeting scheduling or to research/summarise legal authorities in a third-party database.
Non-compliant: Submitting confidential information to a third-party AI tool as described above.

Guideline 3: Disclosure and protection of records

Some uses of AI by parties, experts, and arbitrators may be uncontroversial and would not ordinarily warrant disclosure. There are certain circumstances where disclosing the use of AI tools may be warranted to preserve the integrity of the proceedings or the evidence.

A party seeking disclosure from another party should explain both why it believes that an AI tool was relied upon in the proceedings and how it would materially impact the proceedings and/or their outcome.

It is ultimately up to the parties and/or tribunal to specify the level of disclosure they want to institute for the proceedings.

Compliant: Using AI to generate document summaries for internal use or to identify and select the documents relevant and responsive to document production requests.
Non-compliant: Using AI to calculate damages without disclosing it. For an arbitrator to use AI to compare persuasiveness of parties’ submissions without disclosing it.

Chapter 2: Guidelines for parties and party representatives

Guideline 4: Duty of competence or diligence in the use of AI

Parties and party representatives on record shall be deemed responsible for any uncorrected errors or inaccuracies in any output produced by an AI tool they use in an arbitration.

Compliant: Using AI to assist with drafting language for pleadings/written submissions or to assist in preparation for cross-examination or find inconsistencies in witness statements.

Guideline 5: Respect for the integrity of the proceedings and the evidence

Parties, party representatives, and experts shall not use any form of AI to falsify evidence, compromise the authenticity of evidence or otherwise mislead the arbitral tribunal and/or opposing party or parties.

Advancements in Generative AI and deep fakes can heighten the risks of manipulated or false evidence and can make it more costly or difficult to detect any such manipulation through forensic and other means.

Compliant: Using AI to produce demonstratives where the accuracy of the representation can be challenged by the opposing party by accessing the referenced source data.

Chapter 3: Guidelines for arbitrators

Guideline 6: Non-delegation of decision-making responsibilities

An arbitrator shall not delegate any part of their personal mandate to any AI tool.

This Guideline does not forbid the use of AI tools by arbitrators as an aid to discharge their duty to personally analyse the facts, arguments, evidence and the law and issue a reasoned decision.

If an arbitrator used a Generative AI tool to assist in the analysis of the arguments or the drafting of a decision or award, the arbitrator cannot reproduce the AI’s output without making sure it adequately reflects the arbitrator’s personal and independent analysis of the issues and evidence at hand.

Compliant: Using AI to provide accurate summaries and citations to create a first draft of the procedural history of a case or generate timelines of key facts.

Guideline 7: Respect for due process

An arbitrator shall not rely on AI-generated information outside the record without making appropriate disclosure to the parties and allowing the parties to comment on it.

Where an AI tool cannot cite sources than can be independently verified, an arbitrator shall not assume that such sources exist or are characterised accurately by the AI tool.

Compliant: Using AI to distil or simplify technical concepts to come up with accurate and relevant questions for the hearing.
Non-compliant: Using AI to conduct independent research into substance of the dispute and base decision on such generated outputs without disclosing it to the parties.

Need further advice about the use of AI in arbitration?

Although there is much to consider when it comes to the use of AI in arbitration, there are numerous benefits to using AI tools and there is no denying that it will have an increasingly important role in the future.

TrialView’s arbitration software is leveraged by leading law firms and arbitrators for large scale international arbitrations. It is trusted by the ICC, IAC, and other leading arbitral bodies and venues, and can have a significant impact on efficiency.

The software enables you to manage documents, conduct remote hearings, integrate transcription, and present evidence – all within one centralised workspace, so you can work smarter, not harder.

If you’d like to unlock the power of AI technologies, learn more about the benefits of AI in arbitration or are interested in finding out more about arbitration software, you can book a tailored demo today.

Alternatively, contact our team to learn more, or read our case studies to see our AI tools in action and learn why we are the platform of choice for lawyers, counsels, judges, and arbitrators around the world.