CBA Record November-December 2024

Generative AI. So, by agreeing to the representation, they are agreeing to its use during their representation. For existing cli ents, we’ve handled it on a case-by-case basis. Kevin A. Thompson, Levin Ginsberg AI and legal research – the first step Legal research may be the easiest first step in using AI for legal practice. Some Editorial Board Members have rejected AI for legal research, but others have embraced it to increase efficiency. Adopters note they must review their research output carefully but stress that AI helps them serve their clients. I like to use generative AI for research. When I encounter a topic I’m unfamiliar with, I’ll do a quick search using generative AI to help point me in the right direction. I’ll then use a legal research tool, such as Westlaw or Lexis, to double-check what I learned from AI and to expound upon my research. I like that genera tive AI can provide quick guidance on an issue and allows me to develop my research much quicker than if I started with a legal research tool. Kaitlin King, Hart David Carson I’ve been using generative AI primarily for research but not for drafting. The main reason is that it’s a time-saver as a starting place for research. In fact, it would be foolhardy not to use it for that purpose. However, my mantra is “trust but verify,” I’ve had a few instances where I got different results from similar prompts, which reinforces the need for guardrails and a “live person review” of the output, rather than automatic acceptance of generative AI results. Anne Ellis, The Council of State Governments Justice Center AI and legal writing – not there yet It’s not there yet – is that a bad thing? For most Editorial Board Members, writing with AI has been unhelpful at worst and inef ficient at best. Some have used AI for simple replies to emails or documents, but none have admitted using it for a complex document such as a brief. Maybe this is not such a bad thing. As one Member points out, at least we will still know what to do when faced with a blank page. AI has never been to law school. It is licensed in no jurisdictions. It has never taken a legal writing class. It has no idea how to cite a case. It does not even know how to quote a case accurately. You have to review its work more closely than you would a first-year associate or a green law clerk. The amount of time you will need to determine if the citations are fabricated, the cases say what appears in its draft, or that the conclusions have anything to do with your case, you might as well have written it yourself. Clare McMahon, Reed, Centracchio & Associates

I’ve tried using it to draft internal memos, but I think the tone can come across as rote or (surprise!) somewhat robotic, so I tend not to use it for drafting. Anne Ellis, The Council of State Governments Justice Center I use generative AI for both research and drafting. I started using it pretty early on because my law students were using it regularly, and I wanted to be familiar with how it worked. In the beginning, I used it for inconsequential matters – finding new places to eat or things to do in a new location. Now, I use it for both research and drafting. It’s an incredibly helpful tool, so long as users are checking generative AI outputs for completion and accuracy Trisha M. Rich, Holland & Knight Since I am retired, I have no opinion on the use of generative AI in current practice. My concern is with people currently just learn ing how to write. We may be creating a generation of people who won’t know how to start with a blank page. I am not sure where this leads us, but I don’t think it’s in a positive direction John Levin, retired Remember the role of humans A judge shouldn’t use AI to write. The work calls for judgment, clear thinking, and understanding of people. AI can’t do that. It may string words together but it doesn’t know what they mean. Mistakes happen. All sorts of biases creep in. Justice comes from a human mind, not a machine. People trust judges to decide with care and independence. If a machine does the writing, that trust is lost. Bottom line: Human judges must draft orders and opinions, not leave them to a heartless and bloodless algorithmic behemoth. Justice Michael B. Hyman, Illinois Appellate Court As an attorney at a small firm, I find using technology, such as generative AI, is helpful because it allows me to answer client questions, draft memoranda, and perform research efficiently and effectively. However, my firm’s policy has always been that AI is supplemental and does not replace the work of an attorney. If we use AI, whether it’s for drafting or research, we always double check the work to ensure its accuracy. Attorneys are taught to be detail-oriented and critical thinkers, and AI cannot replicate these skills. Kaitlin S. King, Hart David Carson Your job is to analyze your client’s circumstances critically, deter mine risks, and make recommendations to help them navi gate a risky situation with the guidance that only wisdom and experience can provide. Generative AI has neither wisdom nor experience. It does not even have an idea of what “truth” means. Good lawyering is helping your client understand the truth of their circumstances. Generative AI will make that harder and make you a worse lawyer. Clare McMahon, Reed, Centracchio & Associates

CBA RECORD 37