 "Sudipta Bhattacharjee")
The rise of machines is now a reality in the knowledge-based service sectors, especially those dealing with a "rule-based" ecosystem like legal services. Recent news of an artificial-intelligence (AI) lawyer Chatbot overturning 160,000 parking tickets and an AI system achieving 70 per cent accuracy in predicting outcome of court cases created ripples.
Certainly, the rise in AI technologies is going to be disruptive apropos the legal profession; legal research and repetitive manual functions like filing, generating standard templates and basic review of documents are amenable to full automation. However, the exact extent of such disruption remains unclear at this stage.
When it comes to qualitative analysis/strategic inputs as required in high-end legal advice, humans should still rule the roost. While AI can analyse 'rules' and precedents, choosing the right strategy from often conflicting conclusions emerging from such analysis is often intuitive; for AI to beat human intuition in the legal sphere will require significant advancements in 'Big Data' analysis. Specifically in the Indian context, given that our overall legal ecosystem is still quite rudimentary and is extensively fueled through human discretion rather than 'rules', in the near term, I don't foresee a massive impact. However, in the medium term, we can expect fundamental changes in the manner in which larger law firms organise and work as the focus will gravitate towards high-end legal advisory.
Essentially, consumers of legal services receive two things - a work product that meets her requirement (which may be "substitutable" by AI); second, assurance of quality/consequence by the lawyer. This latter can only be provided by a competent lawyer, backed by insurances and regulated quality control/responsibility requirements - this aspect is probably "un-substitutable". Till the second aspect is not substituted through AI, no new legal implications vis a vis AI-based legal service delivery is foreseen. However, the traditional concepts of 'deficiency in service' will need to be calibrated to an AI scenario - it is likely that a certification-based model evolves wherein law firms using AI of certified standards are subject to a lower rigour as opposed to other firms who may be subject to a 'strict liability' regime apropos "deficiency".
The writer is principal-tax controversy management, Advaita Legal
