You are here:
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Speeches
  4. Lawyers replaced by robots: will artificial intelligence replace the judgement and independence of lawyers?

Lawyers replaced by robots: will artificial intelligence replace the judgement and independence of lawyers?

30 October 2015

On 29 October, Jonathan Smithers, president of the Law Society, delivered a speech at the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA) Conference.


I am delighted to be part of this thought-provoking panel discussion here today. The question that I have been asked to address is 'will lawyers be replaced by robots?'

I will start by explaining how artificial intelligence has permeated our lives, then move on to the legal consequences, and lastly outline briefly what I believe our responsibilities are as leaders of Law Societies and Bar Associations.

1. Artificial intelligence is not only around us but it is part of us



More productive...

Used to be words to describe what we wanted from our internet broadband connection.

Now they describe what we expect not only from all our products and services but also from each other. The expectations that we have from the world and the world has from us are dynamic, ever-changing and transforming at speed.

By combining a basket of different technologies, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly seen as the answer to these unprecedented expectations and needs:

  • Siri on your iPhone, is artificial intelligence
  • Anti-lock brakes in your car, learning the road conditions is artificial intelligence
  • Amazon's recommendations on things that you might like, is artificial intelligence.

AI is all around us.

Complicated and repetitive tasks are better performed by computer algorithms and mechanisms than by the human mind. The margin of error is narrower, the work is done more quickly and the training required is minimal.

Around the world the justice and legal systems have started to embrace the use of technology and the benefits of artificial intelligence. Data analytics are used, for example, to help predict crime and shape social policy.

Firms all around the world have improved the way they conduct legal research by using systems like 'Ross'. Developed by IBM, it is a tool which allows legal practitioners to use natural language and ask questions, rather than use keywords. Ross then provides citations and suggests topical readings from a variety of sources.

The uses of artificial intelligence do not stop there, however. I recently looked at an app that:

  • tracks how many steps we take
  • tracks how many hours of sleep we have, and even
  • tracks our heartbeats.

We are living in a world in which we have become part of the app.

Our phones and gadgets seem to know us better than we know ourselves. It can even pass judgement on your lifestyle choices, such as congratulating us when we hit a certain fitness target.

Mine has broken, as it seems to have forgotten to congratulate me...

Artificial Intelligence is not only all around us but it is also a part of us.

And this is just the start.

We must face the fact that artificial intelligence will become more entrenched in our lives. There is a correlative duty for us as lawyers to scan the horizon, think of the consequences of its uses and, where needed, we must act.

2. Consequences of the entrenchment of artificial intelligence

There is a wealth of research on the ethical consequences of artificial intelligence. However, I just want to focus on the legal effects that result from this new use of technology.

Use of data

Artificial intelligence relies heavily on the use of personal and corporate data for all its practical applications. This inevitably raises serious issues of privacy and data protection.

How will 'big data' - such as your search engine history, your online banking, your medical history - be collected, be used, and stored?

For what purposes can that data be accessed and by whom?

Who is responsible for keeping it safe?

How will we handle global data breaches across different jurisdictions?

Last week Amazon initiated proceedings against thousands of 'fake reviewers', who were paid to give high ratings to products and books in order to raise their profiles on their site. This test case will address some of these questions, and might serve as a precedent for cases in other jurisdictions to follow. The answers, however, will not be comprehensive and many grey areas will still remain.

There is some domestic and emerging international legislation on data protection, however, it is limited and reactive. The legal profession has a responsibility to start answering these questions now and to work together with policy makers and legislators to build a robust framework with appropriate safeguards.

Tort and accountability

Corporate technology giants, software developers and computer programmers are leading on innovation and setting the pace of a new world order.

Google estimates that in less than five years, there will be driverless cars on the streets of the main cities. This activity, which inevitably involves risk, raises questions of tort and accountability when things go wrong.

These self-driving systems may need to make split-second decisions that raise legal questions. A child suddenly runs into the road and the car has to choose: hit the child or swerve into an oncoming bus.

  • How does the car decide?
  • Who decides what the car decides?
  • Who is liable if it makes the wrong decision?

Legal practitioners and academics need to come together to think ahead of the consequences of the new uses of technology and put forward ideas for the best legal response.

Changes to traditional areas of the law

Artificial intelligence is increasingly pushing the boundaries of the traditional areas of law. Property law, my own area of practice, and intellectual property law are areas which are currently being tested on a number of points.

The introduction of 3D printers has posed some serious legal questions. Although the technology used by 3D printers is not strictly AI, there is emerging thinking on the convergence of 3D printing, nanotechnology and even neurotechnology which is already making machines more intelligent.

There is now the possibility of emailing the design of an object to print it on the other side of the world. Then a 3D printer is used to produce this object. In the UK, the Royal Mail has recently launched a 3D printing system last year.

This new model raises a number of questions:

  • Who is the owner of the object?
  • Who is accountable if the product does not fulfil its specifications?
  • Who is responsible if the product is unsafe?

This example shows that there are new ways of ownership that are not currently predicted by our country's statutes or case law. Consequentially, it may generate new and previously unthought-of economic models.

The issue becomes even more problematic when technology is used for a sinister purpose. Criminal enterprises are known for using technology to further their aims.

What will be the consequences of using a gun that was developed and produced using a 3D printer?

How will the judiciary determine the type of offence? Who will be charged?

What legal measures are needed to prevent these incidents?

It is our responsibility, our duty, to map such new uses of technology against the scenarios of risk in order to enable us to plan effectively for the future.

3. Role of law societies and bar associations

The majority of the questions which I have just raised do not currently have answers in the law.

Artificial intelligence is dictating the way that we do the law. We, as a profession, seem to be playing catch-up.

Corporate technology giants, programmers and software engineers have already imagined the future and are executing their vision.

Returning to the original question: will robots replace lawyers?

Many of our clients are already using the web for self-diagnosis. Many of them will google their legal problems before they come to see us.

Self-diagnosis, facilitated by artificial intelligence, is not and will never be a complete replacement for lawyers.

We do so much more than dispensing black-letter law.

An artificial intelligence system is designed to stimulate human thinking but not creative or independent thought. Both of these qualities are essential for the legal profession and the discharge of our professional legal obligations of upholding the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.

Artificial intelligence is incapable of developing creative legal arguments that are needed in both contentious and non-contentious matters. Its ability of interpreting data is also extremely limited.

Although 'robots' might come up with a shortlist of relevant precedents, statues and regulation, they lack the ability to make a persuasive argument that takes the context into account, the individual circumstances of a client and, most importantly, the human experience.

From making the argument to a lender to reconsider repossessing a home of a client who is facing financial hardship, to acting on behalf of a state in an international commercial court, expert argument is required to show the complete picture. Without this, decision makers and the judiciary will be unable to dispense justice effectively.

No algorithm exists to replace us and the work that we do.

Just because an algorithm might perform efficiently it does not mean that it will be correct.

People do not want to be judged by an algorithm.

Finally, empathy and building trust with a client is an essential quality for lawyers which artificial intelligence systems lack. We have moral and ethical responsibilities in the work that we do, whereas AI does not.

Lawyers are and should, however, continue to use artificial intelligence to improve their work. For example, in digitisation of documents or legal research. These drive efficiencies, increase accuracy, assist with client retention and have the potential to reduce overheads and drive greater profits.

Sophisticated legal research tools, such as 'Ross', are very useful and even have parameters to make decisions, but they do not make the decisions themselves. Expert legal intervention through lawyers is always needed.

Artificial intelligence systems are still unable to think of a vision of a better future, to plan and execute its delivery accordingly. This is why collaboration between lawyers and 'robots' seems to be the way forward. We have already seen this in the medical profession, where sophisticated software tools are already being used for early diagnosis of cancer in primary care, helping doctors to identify symptoms more quickly and accurately.

The future of the legal profession is likely to follow suit.

4. Conclusion

The challenges posed by artificial intelligence are global, fast-paced and overwhelming. The solution requires the leaders of Law Societies and Bar Associations to come together:

  • To react to today's demands and anticipate tomorrow's needs
  • To provide the framework for innovation to thrive, and
  • To be the architects that draw the legal blueprint for our future.

Thank you.


Cyber security bookcover
Cyber Security Toolkit

The advice and precedents in this practical toolkit help ensure your cyber security policies/procedures are effective.

Cyber Security Toolkit > More