The Civil and Criminal Section of the Superior Court of Justice of Navarra, in a order of 4 September decided not to sanction a lawyer who cited a provision of the Colombian penal code in a complaint for using ChatGPT.
Start the car by performing a new reflection on the use of emerging technologies and AI-generated materials in judicial procedures, which must be used responsibly, which requires further verification, since the review and validation of legal documents is the responsibility of lawyers to ensure the accuracy and regulatory compliance.
Legal company published new guidance for the profession in November 2023 on the use of generative AI tools, stating that lawyers are responsible for work products generated using “technology-based solutions” and urging lawyers to “carefully review the content and ensure the accuracy.
The European Bar Council (CCBE) has also addressed the regulation of artificial intelligence in legal practice in the document entitled CCBE considerations on the legal aspects of artificial intelligence and, among other considerations, supports effective human supervision in the use of artificial intelligence tools in the field of justice as a precondition of a rule of law justice system.
And more recently and in relation to the use of ChatGPT and other similar tools for legal purposesa study published in January 2024 revealed that the careless use of these technologies in judicial procedures raises important ethical implications and, obviously, is likely to embody a clear example of procedural bad faith and abuse of process.
I apologize
In the case, the Navarrese TSJ analyzes the legal assignment that involved a lawyer from a penal code that was not Spanish, but Colombian, but to the point that the lawyer was quick to present his “most sincere apologies” after having noted that the Chamber the citation in reality did not correspond to our Criminal Code but to the Code, since it was a new matter, opting to archive the separate piece, for abuse of rights or procedural bad faith, without imposing the corresponding sanction pecuniary, but indicating that it must serve as a warning on the legal, deontological and ethical implications that the imprudent use of new technologies can entail.
What are the ethical implications of using AI tools like ChatGPT in legal practice?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Technology Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome, everyone! Today, we are thrilled to have with us Dr. Maria Ramirez, a legal technology expert and consultant. Dr. Ramirez, thank you for joining us!
Dr. Maria Ramirez: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here and discuss such an important topic.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Recently, the Civil and Criminal Section of the Superior Court of Justice of Navarra decided not to sanction a lawyer who referenced the Colombian penal code while using ChatGPT for a legal complaint. What does this decision indicate about the acceptance of AI tools in judicial proceedings?
Dr. Ramirez: This is a significant development in the ongoing conversation about AI in the legal field. It shows that courts are starting to recognize the potential for AI to support legal processes, but it also highlights the need for caution. The court’s decision suggests there is a growing acceptance of these technologies, provided they are used responsibly and ethically.
Editor: Responsibility is a key theme here. The ruling emphasizes the importance of thorough verification of AI-generated material. Could you elaborate on why this is so crucial for lawyers?
Dr. Ramirez: Absolutely. The legal profession is built on precision and accuracy. Lawyers are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the materials they present are compliant with the law and free of errors. AI tools, while powerful, can produce inaccuracies or misinterpretations. A lawyer must verify the information generated to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
Editor: In light of this, legal firms are adapting to the rise of generative AI technologies. You mentioned that a legal company published new guidance for the profession in November 2023 regarding this use. What are some of the key takeaways from that guidance?
Dr. Ramirez: One of the primary takeaways is the assertion that lawyers must take full responsibility for work products generated through AI solutions. This guidance reinforces that while AI can assist with research and document drafting, the final output requires human oversight. It’s not just about leveraging technology; it’s about ensuring that the results are legally sound and uphold ethical standards.
Editor: What challenges do you foresee as lawyers begin to integrate these technologies into their practice more widely?
Dr. Ramirez: Some challenges include training and education. Many lawyers may not fully understand how these AI tools work, leading to potential misuse. Additionally, lawyers must stay updated on legal standards and ethical implications as technology evolves. There’s also that thin line between innovation and dependency—finding a balance will be key.
Editor: You raise an excellent point about dependency. How can legal professionals strike that balance while utilizing AI?
Dr. Ramirez: It’s essential for lawyers to view AI as a tool rather than a replacement. They should leverage these technologies to enhance their work, such as automating tedious tasks or conducting research. However, the critical thinking and decision-making processes should always involve human judgment. Continuing education in technology and law can help professionals make informed choices on the use of these tools.
Editor: Dr. Ramirez, what message would you like to convey to legal professionals considering the incorporation of AI into their practices?
Dr. Ramirez: Embrace the technology, but do so with accountability and care. Understand the limitations and strengths of AI tools. Foster a culture of collaboration between technology and legal expertise, prioritizing ethical standards, client trust, and the integrity of the legal system. The future of law and technology can coexist harmoniously if approached wisely.
Editor: Thank you so much for sharing your insights, Dr. Ramirez. The intersection of technology and law is certainly an exciting field, and it’s evolving rapidly. We appreciate your valuable perspective today!
Dr. Ramirez: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing how these advancements continue to shape the legal landscape.