OK, simmer down. You recognize that I’m not keen on AI, at least up to now, however have you ever ever tried to clarify the related Guidelines of Skilled Duty to a nonlawyer consumer, which is most, if not all, purchasers? Have you ever ever tried to clarify even one rule to a consumer? Do their eyes glaze over? Do they begin to twitch? Do they excuse themselves to get one other cup of espresso? Are you able to blame them?
Making an attempt to clarify any of the foundations — and normally there’s multiple concerned in consumer illustration — is like attempting to place lipstick on a pig. That pig squirms and squeals, lastly wriggling out of your grasp, operating in every single place, anyplace, to keep away from explanations of guidelines that govern us however not them. Penalties of operating afoul of the foundations are ours, not theirs.
These are our guidelines, prolix and constipated as they’re. Within the age by which we now discover ourselves, with the growing dominance of AI’s position, do we actually have to have so many guidelines? Are we the one occupation that has so many guidelines?
Strive explaining to a consumer that we now have twin obligations: we symbolize purchasers however we’re additionally officers of the court docket. A consumer might nicely ask who comes first? Me or the court docket? Whereas usually our inventory in commerce reply is “it relies upon,” if a consumer says that he’s going to perjure himself, the reply is straightforward. The lawyer should withdraw. If the consumer doesn’t perceive why, then which will say one thing about consumer choice.
However in different conditions, the foundations might not be as simple to clarify. Shoppers will not be serious about figuring out the foundations; all they care about is successful the case, negotiating an advantageous contract, or typically simply placing the screws to the adversary, with out worrying about penalties. Shoppers don’t care in regards to the guidelines. In truth, most purchasers don’t even know that the foundations exist. All they care about is outcomes, outcomes, outcomes, and the way a lot they are going to pay in charges, charges, charges.
How about thorny conflicts points? Simply one other instance of how arduous it’s to clarify the foundations. Explaining what conflicts are, how they will come up, whether or not actual or potential, isn’t simple. Explaining conflicts in a letter that requests a battle waiver is tough. Even more durable is explaining that whereas there isn’t any battle now, one might come up sooner or later, after which the scenario will get even murkier.
AI explains conflicts like this: “Conflicts of Curiosity: Avoiding illustration that’s adversarial to a different consumer or considerably restricted by different obligations or private pursuits with out consent.” Easy, easy. We expect by way of each “belt and suspenders.” Do we have to clarify each presumably unhealthy factor that might occur? We legal professionals are voices of doom as we define all of the doable parade of horribles. Are our purchasers as danger averse?
I do know, I do know, the Guidelines of Skilled Duty are established to guard purchasers from unscrupulous, mendacity, dishonest, defrauding legal professionals. However do they actually do this? By the point some circumstances get into the self-discipline system, that lawyer is having fun with life in a rustic the place he can’t be reached.
AI does simplify the foundations in order that atypical individuals can perceive them and what the lawyer’s obligations are. Granted, AI’s explanations don’t embody all nuances and implications, however they do present fundamental data that purchasers are most probably to come across within the attorney-client relationship. AI explains, in plain English, such vital client-facing guidelines as competence, confidentiality, communication, and conflicts. (the four Cs).
If AI may help clarify a lawyer’s obligations to purchasers in phrases which might be simple to know, then I’m all for it. We twist ourselves into pretzels attempting to clarify each permutation that might rise in a illustration. Do we actually want to try this with purchasers who want our assist untying the knots by which they’ve discovered themselves? Is it complicated to the consumer who feels intimidated by in search of authorized counsel within the first place and now’s second-guessing that call? Is that the specified end result?
I’ve at all times thought that the foundations are cumbersome and unwieldy. Let the ethics consultants chat amongst themselves. Attorneys within the trenches want cogent digestible explanations to offer to purchasers. And sure, whereas I do agree with Joe Patrice the AI can make lawyers dumber, AI may help even dumb legal professionals clarify vital lawyer consumer ideas.
Is there any cause why the foundations couldn’t be simplified with the assistance of AI? Is it time for a rewrite? Ought to the acronym “KISS” (not the band) be used right here? Ought to we attempt to “hold it easy, silly?” Your ideas?
Jill Switzer has been an lively member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers training legislation in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a various authorized profession, together with stints as a deputy district lawyer, a solo observe, and several other senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which supplies her the chance to see dinosaurs, millennials, and people in-between work together — it’s not at all times civil. You’ll be able to attain her by e-mail at [email protected].
