GPT in general and the legal industry in particular: Report from an interesting roundtable.

Yesterday at noon (local time), a roundtable on "Beyond ChatGPT: What Generative AI Actually Means for Law Firms, In-House, Legal Tech and More" was held in the US. Legaltech News Editor-in-Chief Stephanie Wilkins welcomed an illustrious crowd of guests.

Without a doubt, the surprise hit came from Pablo Arredondo, Co-Founder and CIO of Casetext. Not only did he announce the simultaneous live launch of GPT-4, but also of "CoCounsel", an application from Casetext that already relies on OpenAI's brand new language model. He raved about the new GPT version, predicting that it would be simply impossible for law firms not to use the new technology because it was so much better than humans (!) To be fair, he added that he had analyzed his own litigation files with CoCounsel, which alerted him to highly personal errors and gaps in reasoning.

Casey Flaherty, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer of LexFusion, initially tried to put things into perspective: GPT is ultimately just one of many available language models that has the hype on its side. However, he also emphasized that the threshold to market maturity had been overcome; if ChatGPT was the trailer, the movies would now follow. His advice: "This is happening now; it will be done by you or to you." 

It was also exciting to hear that Flaherty, unlike the other panelists, very much expects technology to partially replace lawyers.

Darth Vaughn, Litigation Counsel and Legal Innovation and Technology Operations Manager at Ford Motor Company, took a different view: he, too, is excited about new technology, but stressed that at all times domain knowledge must remain available in the organization to control the new tools.

A large indirect impact on advocacy was seen by Jae Um, Founder and Executive Director at Six Parsecs. She, too, sees LargeLanguageModels as indispensable in law firm practice. However, she emphasizes that the use of ultra-fast high technology means the end of traditional billing based on time and material. The law firms are urgently required to try out alternative remuneration models, whereby it will probably come down to trial&error.

In summary, a common ground can be found in the fact that from the point of view of US commercial law firms and providers, the use of state-of-the-art technology is indispensable. Which language models will ultimately prevail cannot yet be judged. I have not heard of any reservations about training models of foreign providers with own law firm content (=client data). And whether this constraint is transferable 1:1 to the continental European market with its completely different legal system could not be addressed in this intra-American format.

Mandatory vaccination as a prototype for digital legislation?

Recently, I reflected here on possibilities to (partially) automate the legal system by using machine-readable language. As chance would have it, just in these days the current work of a Viennese doctoral student of law became known, who has set an initiative in this direction:

Since the beginning of February, the so-called "vaccination obligation" against COVID-19 has been in effect in Austria. But what does "in effect" mean. The associated law and the implementing ordinance issued on the basis of the law comprise a total of 35 paragraphs with countless subdivisions (paragraph, numbers) - not a text from which one can see at a glance how a particular circumstance is to be classified.

On his Website impfpflichterfüllt.at Paul Eberstaller leads the questioners with few, simple questions by the topic and offers at the end a clear answer: the inoculation status is valid or not valid. According to his own information, he needed only four hours for the development.

And now I wonder: compulsory vaccination is one of the most hotly debated topics in Austria because it deeply interferes with people's right to self-determination. If it is possible, even in this highly sensitive area, to formulate legal regulations so clearly that specific facts can be measured against them mechanically - why does this exception not become the rule? This would serve everyone!

Justice as a gamechanger

Today I was interviewed by the agile Nerds of Law Katharina Bisset und Michael Lanzinger for their podcast. As often, the question was, will legal tech become more widespread? What will that mean for the legal profession?

For the most part, there are fairly balancing answers to that question. For once, I'd like to spin a polarizing thought:

"The gamechanger" par excellence in Austria was the justice system. It began deep in the 20th century with the introduction of the form-based dunning action and the digitization of the land register, and a little later the company register. Mandatory electronic legal transactions with the courts gave Austria a decades-long head start. What if the justice system were once again the driving force, and what might that look like?

A thought experiment: laws would be written in machine-readable German, i.e., with clear logical relationships and well-defined terms. There would even be room for discretionary leeway, but we would have to dispense with undefined legal terms and systematic loopholes. The jurisprudence of all courts would be analyzed in depth by machine and connected to the new laws by means of connectors. THAT would be a game changer, but one that would not please many of those involved in the legal system (lawyers, judges, even experts), because many court proceedings could be automated or simply eliminated.

Is the idea absurd? No, research on legal language is plentiful. The bigger issue would certainly be the connection of the jurisdiction, but at least it would not fail today because of the computing power.

Not to be misunderstood: This is not a proposal, but a thought experiment. But the underlying thesis is a fact: Digitization in Austria runs through the justice system!

The Oxymoron in Legaltech

In the context of the anniversary event of the German EDV-Gerichtstag - I reported - a judge had raised the postulate of scalability, but at the same time human control, in connection with the machine anonymization of court decisions. An exceptionally educated, highly esteemed colleague spoke privately of an "oxymoron" in connection with this. Is he right and are oxymora perhaps even generic characteristics of legaltech?

If one follows the various dictionaries of terms, oxymora are combinations of contradictory words or terms to or within a statement. This probably applies to the example cited at the beginning, because automation and human control run counter to each other. But are there other examples?

In a recently published survey by a major professional information provider, there were quite a some clues: For example, the respondents rated collaboration with clients highly, but at the same time considered communication by phone and e-mail to be indispensable. Or the cost-effective automation of office processes is desired, while at the same time the continued use of the law firm's own forms and formats is postulated.

I don't know if these are oxymora in the strictest sense of the word. Most importantly, I wonder if those who express these contrary desires are even aware of this fact. If the answer was no, it shouldn't be surprising. The buzzword bingo in legaltech in its monthly variations of terms is not to be outdone. What non-specialist is supposed to keep track of it all? And the feeble query "What importance do you attach to AI. in the future?" is already confusing in its generality. The appeal to legaltech providers can therefore only be to present clearly defined products in equally clear language and not to keep changing the vocabulary.

Otherwise, the legaltech providers themselves are the oxymoron.

"The 'robojudge' is technologically impossible."

With this clear statement, the Executive Director of the Center for Legal Technology and Data Science at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, Dirk Hartung, tried to direct the discussions about the digitalization of law into more realistic channels.  "We tend to be concerned with the social impact of technologies, the use of which is far beyond any meaningful period of consideration," Hartung said.

The occasion for his lecture was the 30th EDV-Gerichtstag (EDP Court Day), which for well-known reasons was again held virtually rather than in Saarbücken.  Prior to this, Florian Matthes, professor of computer science at the Technical University of Munich, had given a highly interesting talk in which he screened the main technologies that are currently shaping the development of legal informatics. Matthes did not hesitate to address controversial topics. When he describes Natural Language Processing (NLP) for legal texts as an essential field of research, hardly anyone will disagree with him; his appeal to rely (again) more on rule-based expert systems, on the other hand, is likely to meet with headwind.

The topic of NLP also reveals a topic that ran through the entire event. One might agree that "computer scientists and lawyers must become friends" (Maximilian Herberger) if one is concerned about the digitalization of law. However, the very mention of "understanding" legal texts as a link between the processing of existing texts and the generation of new ones triggers fundamentally different associations in lawyers and technicians: the linguistic-logical understanding of a legal issue literally collides with the mathematical approximation analysis that is meant by "understanding" from a technical point of view.

Also of direct interest to Austria is the issue of anonymizing court decisions as a prerequisite for their publication. Work on automating this labor-intensive process has been going on for some time in both Germany and Austria. It is interesting to note a thesis of the judge Isabelle Biallaß: Anonymization not only has to be humanly controlled, it also has to be scaled, depending on whether the anonymized text is to be made available to science or industry.

That could still take some time.

Who is being harmed by bad campaigning?

Last week, I reported on this space about the sale of Kira to Litera and the intention to release a standalone product for corporate lawyers under the Zuva brand. The media release emphasized that Kira technology would continue to be operated and developed under the new umbrella.

Somewhat surprisingly, UK vendor Luminance responded with an aggressive campaign urging existing Kira customers in the legal sector to switch, portraying the Kira-sell in a distinctly different, negative light. One could read from the Luminance press release that it was a child disposal, the fact that the existing management would perform a strategic advisory function was left unmentioned.

Several media are now asking what drove Luminance to this activity, and who actually benefits from bad campaigning. On the one hand, this is coffee-bag reading, because without knowing the reactions of the customers, one will not come to a conclusive answer. In any case, the commenters seem to assume that Luminance itself will come out of this damaged. However, I think that the issue shows the enormous pressure that even established legaltech companies are under. Is it the concern of falling behind in development resources? Is it fear that their own customers will switch to Litera's comprehensive software solution because they appreciate the all-in-one concept? - Everything is possible

In the end, it's always about money

Wolters Kluwer's Future Ready Lawyer Study 2021 was eagerly awaited, as it provides an opportunity to track changes due to the pandemic. There is one aspect in particular that I would like to address here: the growing willingness of legal departments to change.

A quarter of in-house counsel surveyed said they were looking to change law firm(s). The figure has doubled since the previous year. A key reason is the lack of use of technology in law firms. That's worth a closer look.

One would like to think that a client could care less how the lawyer handles his mandate, as long as the time, quality and price are right. To paraphrase Bertram Burtscher (Freshfields): Whether hordes of "ants" (a term used by me) are involved in due diligence or AI-supported software - who cares, as long as the result is right. 

But that is obviously no longer true. Apparently, the awareness is spreading among in-house counsel that the use of technology in law firms can lead to better quality results. Presumably, however, it's not about the technology per se, but about the transparency of the processes for the client. Or thinking one step further: in the end, it's about the best possible quality and - surprise! - it's about money.

Legal Software: The end of one-stop-shops?

Recently, it was reported on alm.com that customers are increasingly turning away from one-stop shops and toward individual technological solutions. Similar comments have also been heard in Viennese legal circles. What is behind all this?

First of all, a paradigm shift is taking place. Up to now, law firms have usually aimed to use as few products as possible in order to avoid interface issues and to have the greatest possible transparency in terms of costs and use. If a change of direction is now on the horizon, surely there must be some dissatisfaction?

Indeed, proponents of diversification say that "one" product is not capable of meeting the highly diverse needs of individual practice groups in larger organizations. One would add that experience with legacy law firm management software also shows how once agile developments can become quite cumbersome monoliths - at least from the customer's perspective. But are isolated products the solution?

The moment to answer this question has not yet come. In any case, an absolute prerequisite would be a standardization of interfaces across providers, and if possible even across countries. This is not easy to imagine. But at least a sum of individual products could definitely develop faster than large "tankers". For this to happen, however, the "top dogs" among the software manufacturers would have to abandon their policy of isolation and approach other, mostly newer, providers. One can hope for that.