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

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

CAT Hearing for £200m Mastercard Settlement Highlights Divide Between Funder and Class Representative

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class representative and funder over a proposed settlement shows that it is not always a relationship in which both parties see eye to eye.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of the ongoing hearing at the CAT, as the tribunal hears arguments as to whether the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard hearing should be approved or not. The hearing, which is scheduled to last until the end of the week, saw counsel for the claimant, defendant and funder each offer their arguments on whether the judges should proceed with the collective settlement approval order (CSAO).

Mark Brealey KC, counsel for class representative Walter Merricks CBE, stated that it was the position of both Merricks and Mastercard that the value of the settlement was “in a range that was fair and reasonable.” Responding to the intervention of Innsworth Capital, the litigation funder opposing the settlement, Brealey argued that “the funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings”.

Charles Bear KC, representing Innsworth as the intervener, highlighted the cost of the funder’s support for the case and argued that approval would mean that “the class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.” Bear went further and emphatically stated that Innsworth’s view is that “it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.”

Sonia Tolaney KC, counsel for Mastercard, suggested that it was the views of the class representative and defendant that should hold the most weight, arguing that “There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].” Tolaney also targeted Innsworth’s questioning of whether the £200 million settlement was the best possible outcome for the class representative, declaring that in Mastercard’s view, “that is the wrong question.”

Announcements Commercial

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services Business Adopts Broadridge’s Global Class Action Solution to Maximize its Clients’ Global Asset Recovery Opportunities

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business, a leading global custodian with USD 13.7 trillion under custody, has partnered with global Fintech leader, Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE:BR) to expand its global custody services, appointing Broadridge as service provider for its global securities class action services.

“As the Securities Services business of BNP Paribas, we are committed to delivering innovative and differentiating products and services to our clients. Broadridge brings advanced technology, market-leading information security and deep industry expertise that align with our goals, enhancing our clients’ experience and supporting their business,” said Christian Houillon, Head of Custody Product for Securities Services at BNP Paribas. “We will be able to harness Broadridge’s proprietary technology to identify, file and recover investment losses, alongside their extensive industry expertise.”

Broadridge provides a comprehensive, proprietary technology solution for global class action services that will help clients identify and act on asset recovery opportunities. This includes a seamless process for identifying, filing, and recovering investment losses, backed by Broadridge's industry expertise.

“As the volume of securities class actions continues to rise, it’s crucial for the clients of BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business and other global financial institutions to leverage all available asset recovery opportunities,” said Steve Cirami, Vice President, Head of Corporate Actions & Class Actions at Broadridge. “Broadridge’s solutions will enable the clients of BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business to obtain all required information to support their decisions on claim recoveries, facilitate investor participation in settlements and support key business functions, delivering a seamless and impactful client experience.”

Investors have more recovery opportunities than ever before as the class action landscape continues to expand globally with more than 35 jurisdictions around the world adopting collective redress mechanisms for shareholders. In 2024 alone, there were more than 125 recovery opportunities and $5.2 billion in settlements. The ability to monitor all opportunities globally requires leading edge technology and expertise, particularly in jurisdictions where considerations of litigation can be complex to navigate.

Broadridge’s dedicated global class action services team comprises deeply knowledgeable and experienced securities litigators, claims administrators, claims auditors and data specialists, equipped to provide clients with unmatched end-to-end services, portfolio monitoring and claims filing and registering processes in global jurisdictions. Learn more about the team here.

About Securities Services at BNP Paribas (securities.cib.bnpparibas)

BNP Paribas’ Securities Services business is a leading global custodian providing multi-asset post-trade and asset servicing solutions to buy-side and sell-side market participants, corporates and issuers. With a global reach covering 90+ markets, its custody network is one of the most extensive in the industry, enabling clients to maximise their investment opportunities worldwide. As a pillar of BNP Paribas’ diversified banking model, Securities Services provides asset servicing solutions that are closely integrated with the first-class services of the Group’s other business lines, in particular those of Global Banking and Global Markets.

As of 31 December 2024, Securities Services had USD 13.7 trillion in assets under custody and USD 2.8 trillion in assets under administration.

About Broadridge

Broadridge Financial Solutions (NYSE: BR) is a global technology leader with the trusted expertise and transformative technology to help clients and the financial services industry operate, innovate, and grow. We power investing, governance, and communications for our clients – driving operational resiliency, elevating business performance, and transforming investor experiences. 

Our technology and operations platforms process and generate over 7 billion communications per year and underpin the daily trading of more than $10 trillion of securities globally. A certified Great Place to Work®, Broadridge is part of the S&P 500® Index, employing over 14,000 associates in 21 countries.

For more information about us, please visit www.broadridge.com.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Craig Geraghty, Legal Director, O’Connors Legal Services

By John Freund and 4 others |

Craig is a highly experienced corporate lawyer and Head of Corporate at O'Connors. His expertise covers a broad range of high-value transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity deals, business reorganisations and restructurings, joint ventures, corporate governance, and regulatory matters. He also has significant experience of advising law firms on litigation funding arrangements.

Craig joined O'Connors from global law firm Bedell Cristin where he handled significant offshore transactional work in their Jersey office. Craig’s offshore experience is a valuable asset, particularly for O'Connors investment fund and insurance practices, while his expertise in litigation funding is a key asset for the firm's legal sector clients.

Company Name and Description: O’Connors Legal Services Limited (which trades as O’Connors). O'Connors is a nationally recognised firm of business lawyers and advisers. Although business sector agnostic, the firm has particular expertise in supporting legal businesses, including law firms, barristers' chambers and claims management companies. Its unique blend of corporate, commercial, insurance, and regulatory legal expertise and unparalleled sector knowledge delivers strategic support and innovative solutions to help legal businesses navigate the legal landscape, manage risk and capitalise on market opportunities.

Website: https://www.oconnors.law

Founded: 2003

Headquarters: Liverpool - additional office in London

Area of Focus: Corporate, Commercial, Commercial Insurance, Litigation Funding, Financial Services and Legal Services Regulation

Member Quote: “We are known as the law firm for law firms and our deep understanding of the legal regulatory landscape means we are perfectly placed to assist law firms in accessing the resources they need to pursue justice through litigation funding.”