Pinsents’ botched AI use sparks dependency alarm
Lawyers in England and Wales have urged firms relying on artificial intelligence systems to be ultra-cautious and sceptical about the information they are being given, following one of the most talked-about tech failures yet.
Last week, global firm Pinsent Masons had referred itself to Britain’s Solicitors Regulation Authority after twice misleading the court based on search results from an internal AI system.
Three solicitors, ranging from partner level to junior lawyer, will also be subject to enquiries from the SRA as it establishes whether there was a breach of the duty not to mislead the court, the England and Wales Gazette reports.
The Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Mullen concluded in Cork & Anor v Smith that the firm had misled the court twice: once by providing references which featured AI hallucinations, then a second time by using AI to produce an explanatory letter that was still wrong.
Lawyers in England and Wales have urged firms relying on artificial intelligence systems to be ultra-cautious and sceptical about the information they are being given, following one of the most talked-about tech failures yet.
Last week, global firm Pinsent Masons had referred itself to Britain’s Solicitors Regulation Authority after twice misleading the court based on search results from an internal AI system.
Three solicitors, ranging from partner level to junior lawyer, will also be subject to enquiries from the SRA as it establishes whether there was a breach of the duty not to mislead the court, the England and Wales Gazette reports.
The Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Mullen concluded in Cork & Anor v Smith that the firm had misled the court twice: once by providing references which featured AI hallucinations, then a second time by using AI to produce an explanatory letter that was still wrong.
Signed off
These letters were checked and signed off by senior colleagues who were not aware of how AI was being relied upon in the research and draft phases.
Even when the AI warned its answers may not be entirely reliable, there appeared to have been no further checks to verify what it was saying.
The firm has apologised and resolved to introduce safeguards for its use of AI.
The case has prompted speculation that this may be a wider issue as firms increasingly rely on AI for legal tasks.
There are questions being raised about the training and oversight of junior lawyers.
The England and Wales Gazette reports that barrister Edward Levey KC, a professional negligence specialist, said this case serves as a salutary reminder not only about the risks of over-reliance on AI, but also of senior lawyers relying too heavily on junior colleagues and the need for effective supervision.
Over-confident
He said: “It seems to me that one of the real problems with AI is that it gives junior lawyers more confidence than they might otherwise have and makes them less inclined to ask for help.
“At the same time, its use by junior lawyers risks giving the impression to the senior lawyers that they have more knowledge and experience than is actually the case – and so the senior lawyers are less hands-on when it comes to supervision and too quick to take what the junior lawyers say at face value. Taken together, this is a dangerous combination.”