Artificial Intelligence or AI itself is not an alien concept in the field of law at the present time. With regards to contract review, document summarization, and predictive analysis, some have even started to incorporate the efforts of the AI agents instead of junior associates or paralegals. However, these tools develop various questions that pertain to the legal accountability, openness, and professionalism of the operations. With AI getting smarter and more independent, the problem that the legal profession faces is that on the one hand it is important and desirable to have autonomous AI, on the other hand it is also crucial to ensure that this autonomy is monitored and controlled to some extent.
What Are AI Agents in Law?
An AI agent is any device that can function on its own based on information, reason and rules of operations. From the field of law they come in different shapes and sizes – from legal advice provided through chatbots, to an analysis of legal cases through machine learning algorithms or software for contract review if they contain any risks and violations.
There are passive weapons including knowledge management ‘helpers’ (e.g., electronic form fillers) to active systems that provide advice or even solutions to problems. For instance, ROSS Intelligence specialized in providing advanced AI research in legal matters while DoNotPay was an AI-powered chatbot that could assist people in fighting their parking tickets as well as representing them in small claims’ court.
The Rise of Legal Autonomy
AI’s autonomy is often considered both as a business opportunity and threat; thus, it is both AI’s strength and weakness. An application that can analyze thousands of contracts in a matter of minutes or predict the probability of litigation with a certain percentage gives a lawyer capability to make a decision more quickly. Nevertheless, over time, some of these systems are expanding their
This question brings a legal and philosophical question into question, namely, is it possible or desirable to consider AI agents as actual legal agents?
Agency and Legal Personhood
In the old law of agency, agency refers to the relationship between the agent and the principal where the former works under the latter’s instruction. AI systems, therefore, do not conform to this model of classification. They are not human beings and they do not possess any aim or motivation; they cannot be punished for their actions or be taken to court presently.
Even some scholars and policy makers within the context of the European Union have proposed that some AI systems should be granted as having some form of what has been referred to as ‘electronic personhood.’ This would facilitate limits which can make the introduction of legal responsibility of AI agents in some few situations possible, like it also does for corporations. However, this matter is quite disputed and raises other questions, for instance, how this responsibility can be implemented and funded.
Accountability in a Black-Box Era
The concepts which play a central role in the regulation of the legal industry depend on the clear division of responsibility. If a human lawyer makes a mistake, one may face discipline or even malpractice litigation. Yet, there are instances where an AI tool gave a prejudiced verdict in a legal case or skyward constructed a tainted contract?
The latter is particularly troublesome due to the fact that many of the AI models used are a ‘black box’. Even the people creating the systems can be bewildered by them especially when they are deploying deep learning models. It becomes hard to explain how a certain decision was made, not to mention who made it and should therefore be held accountable.
Three main types of liability are being considered at the moment:
- Developer Liability – Attribution of the responsibility to the software developers responsible for AI’s flawed logic or algorithm training data.
- User Liability – entails putting the blame on the law firms or other professionals who use the AI.
- Shared or Strict Liability – Division of liability among many or making one person legally liable even if the blame was not entirely his/her own.
Each of these models has its disadvantages, and if reference point is not set, there will be an avalanche of new challenges facing the courts in the coming years.
Ethics and Professional Responsibility
There are some basic principles of legal ethics such as client’s privilege, the competence, and the zealous performance of duties in the legal profession. Can such duties be respected by an AI system?
According to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules, lawyers should be aware of the consequences of an application they apply. This puts a great responsibility on legal experts in ensuring that they are fully conversant with the functioning of the AI tools as well as oversee the outcomes. In practice though, it is easier said than done particularly so when the tool has decision making ability or provides recommendations outside the lawyer’s purview.
Law schools, regulators, and firms have to raise knowledge and awareness to guarantee that lawyers will be able to engage AI responsibly. In some cases, it may mean adding human oversight or audits that would allow for the reversibility and explainability of the AI decision.
The Path Forward: Regulation and Standards
According to the current regulation proposal from the European Union known as the EU AI Act, legal services fall under the category of high-risk, and organizations involved in providing these services are required to meet the following requirements of transparency, accountability, and human intervention. In the United States, the Algorithmic Accountability Act proposes that an impact statement apply on automated decision-making systems.
There seems to be some widely embraced principles regarding use of AI in law as follows.
- Transparency – Both the AI systems and the lawyers should be able to explain how the AI operates and its shortcomings.
- Auditability – It means that the outputs produced by an AI system should be easily auditable and transparent, where it is possible.
- Human Oversight –Any legal recommendation that will be given should not be done without human intervention.
- Bias Mitigation –people should understand they aren’t allowed to employ AI that will bring about discrimination or bias into that context.
Conclusion: A Call for Responsible Innovation
Artificial intelligence agents are a rising force in the legal industry—but as they continue to enter and proliferate within it more responsibility must be placed on them. If such systems are to be burdened with formidable legal responsibilities, they must be subjected to equally tall standards of responsibility and ethical practice with full disclosure of the entire process.
It is also, however, very much a cultural and legal issue. It requires coordination between lawyers, specialists in information technology and computation, policymakers and ethicists. This brings us to one decisive note: even if the given AI agent develops into a fully-fledged entity with all the rights and obligations ascribed to a particular user class, nobody can exclude that the law will not put someone, be it a natural person or a corporate body, as the final reference point of responsibility for the actions carried out by the given agent.
