Introducing AI, the lightsaber to the legal world! It glows with many possibilities, yet promises many dangers if wielded improperly. AI is capable of assisting with legal research, evidence gathering and drafting submissions, but further development is required for it to operate autonomously as an advocate.
The near universal accessibility of the internet in Australia has led to the simplification of many commercial activities such as retail banking and the lodging of tax returns. Conversely, navigation of the judicial system, which prior to COVID-19 had largely resisted digitalisation, remains a complex, expensive and daunting experience for most litigants. Despite the incremental acceptance of technology by the Australian judiciary, the experience of comparable common law jurisdictions suggests a transition to online courts is inevitable.
Our legal system is the culmination of human scholarship, philosophy, and societal development. In the modern age, it’s natural to question whether the nuanced understanding of this system and the art of advocacy is something which can only be mastered by a human. As a surgeon’s hands are replaced with robotic arms, is it now the lawyer’s turn to be condensed, perfected, and replaced?
Introducing AI, the lightsaber to the legal world! It glows with many possibilities, yet promises many dangers if wielded improperly. AI is capable of assisting with legal research, evidence gathering and drafting submissions, but further development is required for it to operate autonomously as an advocate.
Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) has undoubtedly made great strides in the legal field over the past decade. Despite these technical breakthroughs, debate continues to surround the claim that AI can adequately replicate the various roles of counsel in Australia. A barrister’s skill does not lie solely in their mastery of crafting submissions and traversing law reports–instead, their role ranges anywhere from advocate to advisor to perhaps mediator on occasion. Additionally, NSW barristers must observe a set of statutorily defined prescriptions, which embody their independence, professionalism, impartiality, and overriding duty to the administration of justice. We argue that, at least presently, an AI device cannot receive a “call to the bar” because technological and cultural challenges prevent it from adequately embodying a barrister’s roles and values as advocates and advisors.
The shards of sun that could pierce through the clouds illuminated a red plain. The wind was starting to pick up – by nightfall it would be roaring – but otherwise the place was deathly still. A lone wallaby stared at a shape fixed in the middle of the plain. A gargantuan shape, green and black. A house, a manor of some sort that had long since been deserted. It had more than decayed.
Senate Bill 8, otherwise known as the ‘Texas Heartbeat Act’, went into effect on the 1st of September 2021. This newly passed Texan abortion law offers a bounty of $10,000 USD to anyone suing clinics, doctors, nurses, abortion providers and other residents who knowingly or intends to ‘aid or abet’ the performance or inducement of an abortion.
To me, onward means progress, embracing change and new ideas. But onwards also means reflecting on the past. Over the past few years, we have seen a substantial growth in awareness of non-binary gender-diverse people, and a drive for inclusivity. As a burgeoning law student, I wonder how the legal profession, as an advocate for both reform as well as protecting our values, will navigate a post-pandemic world where our personal and collective identities are rapidly shifting in new directions.
When Justice Stevens, writing for the majority in Chevron U. S. A Inc. v Natural Resources Defence Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), laid down the principles of what later became known as Chevron deference, he likely did not consider that the Court was doing anything remarkable. However, contrary to that assumption, the Chevron decision has since become a bedrock of American jurisprudence. In addition, there exists another less well-known, yet equally significant doctrine, that compels courts to give the federal agency the highest deference when interpreting its own regulations—this is the Auer deference
Ex-president Donald Trump’s recent nomination of US Court of Appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ginsburg sparked global concern of a reversal of progressive decisions in many landmark US cases. In particular, the media has homed in on cases which deal with current social-political issues—such as Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)—as decisions that might be reconsidered. Yet, while these cases are undoubtedly important, there are many significant decisions which, though targeted by conservatives since they were decided, remain overlooked by the international community. Most notably is Chevron U. S. A Inc. v Natural Resources Defence Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), a case long criticised by the American right, and which will be the focus of this article.
Moving to a new state alone to start the JD this year came with fears and many expectations. I had a mental checklist of things I strived to do, including trying to get out of my comfort zone and get involved at USYD. I figured this would allow me to meet new people and start fresh. However, life is unpredictable and before I knew it I was on a flight back home merely 2 months later. Reflecting back, I have now come to accept the situation but at the time, I was distraught, my mind was constantly racing and I couldn’t sleep for months
The recent Raise the Age campaign, spearheaded by legal experts, doctors and justice groups, aims to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 to bring Australia in line with many of the jurisdictions around the world and to stop kids from being locked up. In this episode of Footnotes, we delve into Australia's current policy regarding the age of criminal responsibility, have a look at the backgrounds of the kids who are ending up in prison because of it, and also discuss potential alternatives to the current practice of youth incarceration.
Many students may have little idea of what sort of career they would like to pursue after graduating from their degree. Others may have some sort of idea. Why not pursue a career in refugee rights and migration? Here are some highlights of a discussion Joseph Black had with Mitchell Skipsey, Lawyer at The Refugee Advice & Casework Service (RACS), on the field.
This piece explores the extra-legal basis of China’s social credit system and the recent proposals to reform the scheme through a progressive vision of legality, consistency and clarity. However, the proposed developments struggle to substantiate how such ideals will be achieved in practice without any legislative mandate.
Content warning: rape, sexual violence
‘Rape culture’ thrives in an environment in which sexual violence and assault is freely perpetrated. In our modern and globalised society, it is shocking to notice the prominence of rape culture increasing despite the call to action to reduce such instances. From personal experience, the attitude of ‘boys will be boys’ normalises sexually promiscuous comments, jokes, inappropriate touching, and similar to continue. Unfortunately, most readers of this article would have experienced or been in close contact with some form of sexual harassment or violence during their lives. Such instances have the impact of diminished mental health outcomes including anxiety, depression, trauma, and others.
The SULS COVID-19 Student Experiences Survey was administered in Semester 1, 2020 to gather information on students' experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It measured experiences in three areas: economic experiences, academic experiences and mental wellbeing experiences. It was presented to the law faculty on 2 July 2020 at the Student Staff Consultative Forum.
The near universal accessibility of the internet in Australia has led to the simplification of many commercial activities such as retail banking and the lodging of tax returns. Conversely, navigation of the judicial system, which prior to COVID-19 had largely resisted digitalisation, remains a complex, expensive and daunting experience for most litigants. Despite the incremental acceptance of technology by the Australian judiciary, the experience of comparable common law jurisdictions suggests a transition to online courts is inevitable.
In recent years, we have seen unprecedented technological advancement across broad disciplines, showing great potential and revolutionising the way certain tasks are operated. Such technology is remarkably applicable in the area of law, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being used to automate and augment legal procedures such as legal research, e-discovery, contract drafting, and predicting litigation outcomes. In June 2020, OpenAI released a new AI system called GPT-3, a developed language model that has 175 billion parameters. Due to its size, GPT-3 can carry out specific tasks such as generating code, solving problems, and composing poems without the need to input large amounts of complex data. As it is in its beta stage, it is only accessible by a limited number of individuals. Regardless, the introduction of GPT-3 gives access to new opportunities pertinent to the field of law.
Our legal landscape is rapidly evolving, and one of the most significant disruptors of the past few years is the use of predictive analytics.
Predictive analytics refers to the forecasting of outcomes through analysing quantitative data, which allows lawyers to engage in more efficient and strategic decision-making. This includes predictive judicial analytics, which involves the analysis of judicial behaviour by looking at decision-making patterns of judicial officers and predicting the likely outcome.
