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.
SULS x NSW Bar Association Competition 2022
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.
