Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Best Practices for Implementing AI

By Anthony Johnson |

The following article was contributed by Anthony Johnson, CEO of the Johnson Firm and Stellium.

The ascent of AI in law firms has thrust the intricate web of complexities and legal issues surrounding their implementation into the spotlight. As law firms grapple with the delicate balance between innovation and ethical considerations, they are tasked with navigating the minefield of AI ethics, AI bias, and synthetic data. Nevertheless, within these formidable challenges, law firms are presented with a singular and unparalleled opportunity to shape the landscape of AI law, copyright ownership decisively, and AI human rights.

Conducting Due Diligence on AI Technologies

Law firms embarking on the integration of AI into their practices must commence with conducting comprehensive due diligence. This process entails a precise evaluation of the AI technology’s origins, development process, and the integrity of the data utilized for training. Safeguarding that the AI systems adopted must be meticulously developed with legally sourced and unbiased data sets. This measure is the linchpin in averting potential ethical or legal repercussions. It is especially paramount to be acutely mindful of the perils posed by AI bias and AI hallucination, both of which have the potential to undermine the fairness and credibility of legal outcomes.

Guidelines must decisively address the responsible use of AI, encompassing critical issues related to AI ethics, AI law, and copyright ownership. Furthermore, defining the scope of AI’s decision-making power within legal cases is essential to avert any over-reliance on automated processes. By setting these boundaries, law firms demonstrate compliance with existing legal standards and actively shape the development of new norms in the rapidly evolving realm of legal AI.

Training and Awareness Programs for Lawyers

Implementing AI tech in law firms isn’t just a technical challenge; it’s also a cultural shift. Regular training and awareness programs must be conducted to ensure responsible and effective use. These programs should focus on legal tech training, providing lawyers and legal staff with a deep understanding of AI capabilities and limitations. Addressing ethical AI use and the implications of AI on human rights in daily legal tasks is also required. Empowering legal teams with knowledge and tools will enhance their technological competence and drive positive change.

Risks and Ethical Considerations of Using AI in Legal Practices

Confidentiality and Data Privacy Concerns

The integration of AI within legal practices presents substantial risks concerning confidentiality and data privacy. Law firms entrusted with handling sensitive information must confront the stark reality that the deployment of AI technologies directly threatens client confidentiality if mishandled. AI systems’ insatiable appetite for large datasets during training lays bare the potential for exposing personal client data to unauthorized access or breaches. Without question, unwaveringly robust data protection measures must be enacted to safeguard trust and uphold the legal standards of confidentiality.

Intellectual Property and Copyright Issues

The pivotal role of AI in content generation has ignited intricate debates surrounding intellectual property rights and copyright ownership. As AI systems craft documents and materials, determining rightful ownership—be it the AI, the developer, or the law firm—emerges as a fiercely contested matter. This not only presents legal hurdles but also engenders profound ethical deliberations concerning the attribution and commercialization of AI-generated content within the legal domain.

Bias and Discrimination in AI Outputs

The critical risk looms large: the potential for AI to perpetuate or even exacerbate biases. AI systems, mere reflections of the data they are trained on, stand as monuments to the skewed training materials that breed discriminatory outcomes. This concern is especially poignant in legal practices, where the mandate for fair and impartial decisions reigns supreme. Addressing AI bias is not just important; it is imperative to prevent the unjust treatment of individuals based on flawed or biased AI assessments, thereby upholding the irrefutable principles of justice and equality in legal proceedings.

Worst Case Scenarios: The Legal Risks and Pitfalls of Misusing AI

Violations of Client Confidentiality

The most egregious risk lies in the potential violation of client confidentiality. Law firms that dare to integrate AI tools must guarantee that these systems are absolutely impervious to breaches that could compromise sensitive information. Without the most stringent security measures, AI dares to inadvertently leak client data, resulting in severe legal repercussions and the irrevocable loss of client trust. This scenario emphatically underscores the necessity for robust data protection protocols in all AI deployments.

Intellectual Property Issues

The misuse of AI inevitably leads to intricate intellectual property disputes. As AI systems possess the capability to generate legal documents and other intellectual outputs, the question of copyright ownership—whether it pertains to the AI, the law firm, or the original data providers—becomes a source of contention. Mismanagement in this domain can precipitate costly litigation, thrusting law firms into the task of navigating a labyrinth of AI law and copyright ownership issues. It is important that firms assertively delineate ownership rights in their AI deployment strategies to circumvent these potential pitfalls preemptively.

Ethical Breaches and Professional Misconduct

The reckless application of AI in legal practices invites ethical breaches and professional misconduct. Unmonitored AI systems presume to make decisions, potentially flouting the ethical standards decreed by legal authorities. The specter of AI bias looms large, capable of distorting decision-making in an unjust and discriminatory manner. Law firms must enforce stringent guidelines and conduct routine audits of their AI tools to uphold ethical compliance, thereby averting any semblance of professional misconduct that could mar their esteemed reputation and credibility.

Case Studies: Success and Cautionary Tales in AI Implementation

Successful AI Integrations in Law Firms

The legal industry has witnessed numerous triumphant AI integrations that have set the gold standard for technology adoption, unequivocally elevating efficiency and accuracy. Take, for example, a prominent U.S. law firm that fearlessly harnessed AI to automate document analysis for litigation cases, substantially reducing lawyers’ document review time while magnifying the precision of findings. Not only did this optimization revolutionize the workflow, but it also empowered attorneys to concentrate on more strategic tasks, thereby enhancing client service and firm profitability. In another case, an international law firm adopted AI-driven predictive analytics to forecast litigation outcomes. This tool provided unprecedented precision in advising clients on the feasibility of pursuing or settling cases, strengthening client trust and firm reputation. These examples highlight the transformative potential of AI when integrated into legal frameworks.

Conclusion

Integrating AI within the legal sector is an urgent reality that law firms cannot ignore. While the ascent of AI presents complex challenges, it also offers an unparalleled opportunity to shape AI law, copyright ownership, and AI human rights. To successfully implement AI in legal practices, due diligence on AI technologies, training programs for lawyers, and establishing clear guidelines and ethical standards are crucial. However, risks and moral considerations must be carefully addressed, such as confidentiality and data privacy concerns, intellectual property and copyright issues, and bias and discrimination in AI outputs. Failure to do so can lead to violations of client confidentiality and costly intellectual property disputes. By navigating these risks and pitfalls, law firms can harness the transformative power of AI while upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and just legal system.

About the author

Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson

View all Posts by Anthony Johnson

Commercial

View All
Commercial Deals

Litigation Funders Pursuing Law Firm Ownership Through Arizona ABS Rules

By Harry Moran |

As the legal funding industry continues to mature and grow, funders are keen to explore new opportunities to commit their capital to legal disputes, either through direct or indirect routes. One example of the latter approach can be found in law firm funding, with funders looking to embrace opportunities in jurisdictions that allow for outside investment or ownership of law firms.

An article in Bloomberg Law examines the influx of capital into Arizona from litigation funders and private equity firms who are seeking to acquire stakes in law firms, following the state’s reforms of rules governing law firm ownership and alternative business structures (ABS). The article states that of the 76 applications for an ABS that have been approved since 2020, at least 15 of these applications have involved litigation funders or private equity firms.

Bloomberg Law’s reporting reveals that the litigation funders behind these moves into ABS ownership models of Arizonan law firms include: Pravati Capital, Virage Capital Management, Counsel Financial, Bespoke Capital Consulting and 777 Partners. 

One example given is the 1787 legal group, which was formed in 2023 by Pravati Capital’s CEO Alexander Chucri, who owns 80 percent of the company through Arizona Legal Ventures LLC. Similarly, the article covers an ongoing venture pursued by Armadillo Litigation Funding alongside the Houston-based Johnson Law Group, the ABS Bay Point Legal Partners, and ARCHER Systems settlement administrator. In this case, both Armadillo and Johnson Law Group are already owned by the same individuals.

Boris Ziser, based partner and co-head of the finance group and global leader of the litigation funding practice at Schulte Roth + Zabel, told Bloomberg that Arizona’s reform of the ABS rules “didn’t introduce a new concept in terms of funding or financing of a law firm’s business, what it did was changed the way one can provide that funding.” Ziser goes on to explain that “what the Arizona ABS enables the law firm to do is actually funding, or investing, in an equity form rather than debt and that could have a lot of appeal.”

The article goes on to explain that despite these firms being based in Arizona, the ABS model still allows them to pursue case opportunities nationwide, as the lawyers at the firm can co-counsel with firms based in other states.

Case Developments Commercial

Deminor Funding Paralympic Athlete’s Lawsuit Against IPC

By Harry Moran |

Supporting access to justice remains one of the core benefits that litigation funding brings to legal systems all around the world, with third-party funders providing the desperately needed resources for smaller litigants to fight against well-resourced defendants. This is epitomized in a case where a funder is supporting a Paralympic athlete’s fight for justice against the sport’s governing body.

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that it is funding a lawsuit brought against the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) by Brazilian Para swimmer André Brasil. The lawsuit has its origins in World Para Swimming’s (WPS) revision of its classification system for the Paralympic Games in 2018, which led to André Brasil being reclassified as ineligible to compete. Following this decision, Brasil and the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CBP) initiated legal proceedings against the IPC in Germany, arguing that the classification system violates both human rights, and German and European antitrust laws. 

At first, the Cologne Regional Court rejected these arguments and sided with the IPC, but this was eventually overturned by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, ruling that the IPC’s position as a monopoly meant that it ‘had an obligation to grant the Athlete a sufficient grace period in order to prepare him for the rule change and his potential ineligibility.’ The court ordered the IPC to pay André Brasil damages, but the IPC is now seeking to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Justice.

André Brasil is being represented by Counsel Alexander Engelhard and a team of attorneys from Arnecke Sibeth Dabelstein. Engelhard expressed gratitude to have “a reliable and value-driven litigation funder in Deminor” supporting the lawsuit, and said that “together we will do what it takes to allow the Federal Court of Justice to decide in the Athlete’s favour.”

Dr. Malte Stübinger, General Counsel Germany at Deminor said, “By supporting André, we are advocating for a broader change that champions the rights and fair treatment of all athletes. It's essential that we address these systemic issues to ensure that the spirit of competition remains just and equitable for everyone.”

Announcements Commercial Fundraising

CASL Targets Australian Investors in Launch of New $150M Litigation Fund

By Harry Moran |

Leading Australian litigation funder CASL today launched a $150 million fund giving local investors the opportunity to participate in funding of selected new class actions including product liability and other mass consumer claims, commercial litigation and insolvency claims. 

CASL Fund 2 is expected to appeal to Australian sophisticated investors seeking exposure to a truly alternative asset class with attractive risk-adjusted returns and a capital-protected option. The fund is well suited to high-net worth individuals, family offices and foundations seeking to diversify into uncorrelated ESG assets. 

Co-founded in 2020 by two of Australia’s most experienced litigation funders, John Walker and Stuart Price, CASL has quickly established a reputation as an astute backer of legal claims in the competitive Australian market. The two completed actions filed with the backing of CASL’s inaugural $156 million fund since 2022 have returned 165% to investors; another 11 actions are in progress. 

Considered a pioneer of litigation funding in Australia, CASL Executive Chair John Walker co-founded IMF Bentham, now Omni Bridgeway, in 1998 while CASL CEO Mr Price was CEO of Litigation Lending Services for six years prior to co-founding CASL. 

Mr Price said litigation funding had an important role to play in levelling the legal playing field for victims of corporate or government misconduct, and investors were important partners in this process. 

“In global terms Australia is a receptive jurisdiction for the filing of group claims and funded actions but there is increasingly a premium on funders with proven expertise in sourcing and qualifying claims, and managing them to a successful resolution,” Mr Price said. 

“CASL brings that – our team has a proven record for deploying funds efficiently in support of worthy claims and generating strong financial outcomes for both claimants and investors. 

“We see a healthy pipeline of potential new actions in Australia with good prospects and considerable upside for investors willing to fund them. This fund will be a rare opportunity for investors to participate in a purely domestic litigation funding play backed by an experienced local team with a proven record for generating returns for investors. Early indications are we have $30 million in investor pre-commitments so there is clearly an appetite for litigation funding as an alternative asset class.” 

The combined success rate of 183 funded claims involving Mr Walker or Mr Price since 1996 is 92%. These cases have delivered settlement proceeds of $2.6 billion with an average duration of two and half years. 

The launch of CASL Fund 2 comes amid a changing landscape for class actions in Australia, with consumer actions overtaking securities actions as the leading type of funded claim, reflecting the development of effective legislation to hold large corporates to account. 

An innovative feature of the CASL Fund 2 offer is the ability of investors to elect a capital-protected allocation option with a discounted target return.

Key features of the offer include:

 CASL Fund 2: Up to $150m, Class A and Class B Units
 Class AClass B
Capital protectionYesNo
Fund term5 years
(2 years investment, 3 years harvest)
Hurdle rate per annum10%12%
Performance fee (after hurdle, fees and costs)40%25%
Management fee (% of capital commitment) per annum2%2%

Funds raised will be deployed only into new actions, with all existing funded matters funded by CASL Fund 1. No distinction will be made between Class A and B funds for the purposes of funding actions. 

An estimated $200m to $300m is deployed by litigation funders supporting legal claims in Australia, excluding law firms’ funding of actions from their own balance sheets. The most active sources of funding for Australian actions are based offshore and include hedge funds and specialist asset managers, many domiciled in tax-friendly jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands and Channels Islands, attracted to Australia’s relatively receptive environment for group claims. 

CASL’s Fund 2 will be an Australian-domiciled unit trust. Bell Potter is lead manager for the CASL Fund 2 capital raise. 

Mr Price said: “Agility and responsiveness are important in selecting claims and bringing litigation – being based locally, CASL has the advantage of being able to move and make decisions quickly when required.” 

To coincide with the fundraise CASL announced that Ian Stone, former Group Managing Director and CEO of RAA, would join the Board of CASL’s Trustee entity CASL Funder Pty Limited. Tania Sulan, former Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer - Australia for Omni Bridgeway will also join the CASL Investment Committee. Visit www.casl.com.au for more information about CASL Fund 2.

Read More