The discussion centred around the same type of points that other commentators here have already raised - specifically, the prevalence of 'clients' not being able to answer basic questions, but also clients not necessarily being literate enough to understand their own case and certainly not able to articulate the legal solution to their problems.
Overall, we heard that the AI solution would assist people from the Ministry of Law when helping
'clients' by having the more routine part of claims summarised by AI so that they could be discussed, and being able to devote their 'client time' to digging down to discovering what was the real problem faced by complainants and assisting them with it. A lot of emphasis was put on the AI being a tool to help MinLaw staff be better placed to help complainants, rather than it being a self-help tool. A lot of emphasis was also placed on the time and effort needed to keep such an AI system up-to-date and relevant - definitely, not a 'set and forget' solution that achieves nothing much except some good publicity.
Isn't the basic weakness the need for individuals to explain in their own words what the issue is. Particularly with the language and educational issues that are likely to exist in the “target market”. It can be difficult enough face to face.
I had an interesting conversation with a conveyancing solicitor about this. She thought it was a non-starter on the basis that only about half of her clients are able to answer basic questions like whether they are joint tenants or tenants in common (the rest either don't know or guess wrong)
I'm fully in favour of some kind of free at the point of use national legal service (possible staffed by the hordes of paralegals likely to be made redundant by AI)
I have known President Richard Atkinson for decades and have much respect for him and at least what he for the Society is proposing is innovative and potentially an enhancement to access for the impoverished and otherwise disadvantaged many, rather than a pruning of for example jury trial rights. There are options to what seems to be the starting premise for so much emanating from government of deciding which bits of the service can be chipped away at in order to arrive at the soothing objective of movement being equated to progress.
However, should this or any future administrations be attracted to Richard’s ideas then to that government I say “‘ware the usual mega- entities of Crapita, Serco or their deftly named offshoots and the “guarantees” to save mega-bucks without the service delivered becoming the least bit coarsened or diminished. The “graveyard” is full of examples of such outsourcing leading to shoddier, less comprehensive and indeed a less trustworthy service.
This is an interesting advance. AI is only as good as the prompts it receives.
I expect support and admin staff could be easily replaced.
But lawyers will have to be prudent and smarten up on their technical use of AI and not blindly accept any output from AI tools as being, valid particularly with the citation of cases.
I have spent the past two days at a conference focussing on AI. The conference was put on by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Ministry of Law in Singapore. One of the sessions was called 'AI and Improving Access to Justice' or something similar. Some details of the new initiative that was discussed are published at https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/Singapore-Courts-rolls-out-new-AI-tool-to-help-support-summarise-Small-Claims-Tribunals-cases.
The discussion centred around the same type of points that other commentators here have already raised - specifically, the prevalence of 'clients' not being able to answer basic questions, but also clients not necessarily being literate enough to understand their own case and certainly not able to articulate the legal solution to their problems.
Overall, we heard that the AI solution would assist people from the Ministry of Law when helping
'clients' by having the more routine part of claims summarised by AI so that they could be discussed, and being able to devote their 'client time' to digging down to discovering what was the real problem faced by complainants and assisting them with it. A lot of emphasis was put on the AI being a tool to help MinLaw staff be better placed to help complainants, rather than it being a self-help tool. A lot of emphasis was also placed on the time and effort needed to keep such an AI system up-to-date and relevant - definitely, not a 'set and forget' solution that achieves nothing much except some good publicity.
Isn't the basic weakness the need for individuals to explain in their own words what the issue is. Particularly with the language and educational issues that are likely to exist in the “target market”. It can be difficult enough face to face.
I had an interesting conversation with a conveyancing solicitor about this. She thought it was a non-starter on the basis that only about half of her clients are able to answer basic questions like whether they are joint tenants or tenants in common (the rest either don't know or guess wrong)
I'm fully in favour of some kind of free at the point of use national legal service (possible staffed by the hordes of paralegals likely to be made redundant by AI)
Jase Ayathori is in my view right.
I have known President Richard Atkinson for decades and have much respect for him and at least what he for the Society is proposing is innovative and potentially an enhancement to access for the impoverished and otherwise disadvantaged many, rather than a pruning of for example jury trial rights. There are options to what seems to be the starting premise for so much emanating from government of deciding which bits of the service can be chipped away at in order to arrive at the soothing objective of movement being equated to progress.
However, should this or any future administrations be attracted to Richard’s ideas then to that government I say “‘ware the usual mega- entities of Crapita, Serco or their deftly named offshoots and the “guarantees” to save mega-bucks without the service delivered becoming the least bit coarsened or diminished. The “graveyard” is full of examples of such outsourcing leading to shoddier, less comprehensive and indeed a less trustworthy service.
This is an interesting advance. AI is only as good as the prompts it receives.
I expect support and admin staff could be easily replaced.
But lawyers will have to be prudent and smarten up on their technical use of AI and not blindly accept any output from AI tools as being, valid particularly with the citation of cases.