Jump to content

Using ChatGPT to write legal memo or perform other legal tasks?


Zarathustra

Recommended Posts

I played with it a bit, it is generally pretty good at setting out basic concepts more accurately than a layperson, however it will be confidently wrong about more discrete issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty Iron Ring
  • Lawyer
1 hour ago, Cool_name said:

 however it will be confidently wrong about more discrete issues.

To be fair, this is a common (and often successful) approach among the flesh and blood litigators.

Edited by Rusty Iron Ring
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
PzabbytheLawyer
  • Lawyer

This is probably a very good way to get experience with a lawpro lawsuit.

Edited by PzabbytheLawyer
  • Like 4
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Windsorhopeful
  • Articling Student

I don't see any reason to not start with Chat GPT then fact check all the information and edit from there. Honestly, as long as you're careful and don't rely on it being correct, it can be a great resource or starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
7 minutes ago, Windsorhopeful said:

I don't see any reason to not start with Chat GPT then fact check all the information and edit from there. Honestly, as long as you're careful and don't rely on it being correct, it can be a great resource or starting point.

It's literally less work to do it right on your own than it is to unnecessarily fact check a bunch of random nonsense ChatGPT spits out while it still fails to provide the proper sections, cases, etc, you actually will need to find on your own regardless.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phaedrus
  • Lawyer

That said, before OpenAI blocked it from doing so, ChatGPT could spit out a shockingly usable sentencing submissions minus the case references and Code pinpoints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably could use it for purely administrative tasks, and I am hoping that AI can replace routine stuff like letters and emails that don't involve advice.

At this point, using it for actual lawyering would be like a mechanic asking me -- someone who doesn't really know how to change oil -- to do some research and write a training manual on how to assemble a car motor. I might be able to write a pretty coherent, plausible text based upon publicly available sources. But at any key point, it could be complete bullshit. And if you have any sort of duty of care in a professional role, why invite the possibility that you could be explaining to an insurer that you relied on the advice of a free internet robot to perform tasks at which you're supposedly competent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PzabbytheLawyer
  • Lawyer
48 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

You probably could use it for purely administrative tasks, and I am hoping that AI can replace routine stuff like letters and emails that don't involve advice.

At this point, using it for actual lawyering would be like a mechanic asking me -- someone who doesn't really know how to change oil -- to do some research and write a training manual on how to assemble a car motor. I might be able to write a pretty coherent, plausible text based upon publicly available sources. But at any key point, it could be complete bullshit. And if you have any sort of duty of care in a professional role, why invite the possibility that you could be explaining to an insurer that you relied on the advice of a free internet robot to perform tasks at which you're supposedly competent.

Because many lawyers simply are not competent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Because many lawyers simply are not competent.

 

I wondered aloud today to another lawyer who works in my office whether I'll be checked out and won't care about my cases in 20 years. She informed me that I am too stubborn and egotistical to relax. So, I guess I have that going for me.

  • Nom! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Lawstudents20202020
  • Lawyer
On 2/24/2023 at 12:44 PM, realpseudonym said:

You probably could use it for purely administrative tasks, and I am hoping that AI can replace routine stuff like letters and emails that don't involve advice.

At this point, using it for actual lawyering would be like a mechanic asking me -- someone who doesn't really know how to change oil -- to do some research and write a training manual on how to assemble a car motor. I might be able to write a pretty coherent, plausible text based upon publicly available sources. But at any key point, it could be complete bullshit. And if you have any sort of duty of care in a professional role, why invite the possibility that you could be explaining to an insurer that you relied on the advice of a free internet robot to perform tasks at which you're supposedly competent.

Currently It's more like being asked to do that and then writing a manual on dishwasher repair and calling it a car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

epeeist
  • Lawyer

Without specifically researching the topic legally or ethically, it seems akin to using a draft prepared by any non-lawyer. That is, it would be wrong to just use it. But as long as you don't simply use the draft but spend enough time and effort reviewing, and if applicable correcting and editing what an articling student, law clerk, summer student, assistant, ChatGPT, unknown people who prepared a precedent, or anyone else wrote, you're taking responsibility for it as a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Without specifically researching the topic legally or ethically, it seems akin to using a draft prepared by any non-lawyer. That is, it would be wrong to just use it. But as long as you don't simply use the draft but spend enough time and effort reviewing, and if applicable correcting and editing what an articling student, law clerk, summer student, assistant, ChatGPT, unknown people who prepared a precedent, or anyone else wrote, you're taking responsibility for it as a lawyer.

Yea, but in another decade with enough inputted data we're going to start to see some pretty good drafts. I expect that large law firms are going to start to be able to train the AI properly and end up largely replacing the precedent systems they have now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, epeeist said:

Without specifically researching the topic legally or ethically, it seems akin to using a draft prepared by any non-lawyer. That is, it would be wrong to just use it. But as long as you don't simply use the draft but spend enough time and effort reviewing, and if applicable correcting and editing what an articling student, law clerk, summer student, assistant, ChatGPT, unknown people who prepared a precedent, or anyone else wrote, you're taking responsibility for it as a lawyer.

It's not the same though. ChatGPT is a black box. It's a core issue with this form of AI. There's no way to check its work other than to independently research every statement to see if there's  corroboration for that fact or authority and whether it's contradicting available information. As @CleanHands says, that's far more work than doing it yourself.

Unless they die or disappear, students and staff are the opposite of a black box. As an employer, you control them. You can ask them for their sources. And even if you can't, because you're using someone else's memo, students don't usually just make up facts and case names out of nowhere, because we're taught from a young age that doing so is unethical and poor work. It's a lot easier to retrace a human's work than AI work, because humans are not black boxes.

Edited by realpseudonym
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epeeist
  • Lawyer

@Mal @realpseudonym

I'm not so sanguine about assuming that humans are all that reliable, and even if for some things in your experience it might not be appropriate, for some things it might be. Anyway, here's an opinion piece (by a lawyer) from Canadian Lawyer last month, brief excerpt most applicable to this discussion (as opposed to the Shakespearean-style cease and desist letter):

"...

If the ChatGPT system output doesn’t meet your requirements, you can easily type in a new question and get a different result. For example, with one of my firm’s law clerks, we tried to see how an AI system would do in drafting a resolution for the transfer of shares on a tax-deferred basis. The initial result was not correct. As we clarified our questions with additional details, the response improved.

Each release of GPT has seen a marked progression in the quality of the output result, and the upcoming GPT-4 will have the latest and best improvements. Companies that focus on training the tool with just legal context will have a better output – I’ve seen several companies doing this, and their legal technologies are incredible.

For example, at Caravel Law, we have been experimenting with several AI tools, including Spellbook by Rally Legal, built on OpenAI technologies. Among its features, the software provides the ability to read a contract and draft an email to the client to explain the contract’s contents. We could use this as a first draft explanation to the client.

Another AI tool, Harvey, also built using OpenAI technologies, has a very similar interface to ChatGPT, but the accuracy and quality output results are significantly better. Harvey describes itself as a legal assistant, and in some ways, it is. You can use the software to, as an example, draft a legal letter, draft a motion for summary judgment, and prepare research briefs...." [emphasis added]

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/how-chatgpt-will-affect-the-law/373423

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
GGrievous
  • Law Student

I just asked it some LSAT questions out of interest and it very confidently gave the wrong answer. This thing wouldn't even be able to get into law school in Canada, I don't think it should be writing memos. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
5 hours ago, Barry said:

I just asked it some LSAT questions out of interest and it very confidently gave the wrong answer. This thing wouldn't even be able to get into law school in Canada, I don't think it should be writing memos. 

ChatGPT-4 got a 163 on the LSAT, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patient0L
  • Law Student

Chat GPT has been bombing on crim questions which doesn’t bode well for self-reps.

Edited by Patient0L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
14 minutes ago, Patient0L said:

Chat GPT has been bombing on crim questions which doesn’t bode well for self-reps.

Wait till you find out how bad actual lawyers really are! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
44 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Wait till you find out how bad actual lawyers really are! 

Just the other day a lawyer tried to argue to me that the elements of unlawful confinement weren't made out in a scenario where someone repeatedly asked a driver to stop a car and let her out and he refused and kept driving, on the basis that she "got into the car voluntarily" in the first place.

After his brilliant argument failed to convince me to withdraw the charge and we proceeded to trial, he asked the complainant in cross whether she got into the car voluntarily and she said something to the effect of "yes, I just said that," and the lawyer had this smug, victorious look like he was Gerry Spence and just imploded the Crown case.

(To be clear, I don't give ChatGPT much credit for being better than that guy though.)

  • Like 1
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lionel Hutz
  • Lawyer

I copied and pasted a LSAT logic games section into chatGPT a few weeks ago, and it confidently got 6/7 questions wrong. The one it got right was sheer chance, as the explanation it provided made no sense. That being said, ChatGPT is far less confident in its mistakes than many lawyers I've encountered.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.