This past November, there was one piece of news that was important for lawyers and law firms that didn't attract much attention: the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court has begun to use AI to generate judgments, and the overall completion rate can reach about 80%.
It is not ChatGPT or artificial intelligence from other domestic platforms that generates the judgment, but the "generative AI-assisted case-handling system" built by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, which is an artificial intelligence pilot approved by the Jiangsu Provincial High Court.
The specific functions of the system will not be expanded here.
Judging from the introduction, compared with other artificial intelligence, the system is relatively simple at this stage, and it does not capture the content generated by network big data, but outputs the content according to the electronic file information of the case file and the legal knowledge data.
At present, the system is mainly used in financial loan contract disputes, labor disputes, sales contract disputes, housing lease contract disputes and other highly patterned cases, and will be gradually expanded to other more complex cases in the next step.
Although simple, it is enough to attract the attention of lawyers, and this is an attempt to apply artificial intelligence to the field of legal practice. Since it is possible to generate a judgment, of course, it is also possible to generate a complaint and a reply.
Lawyers may not be at risk of being replaced by artificial intelligence, but artificial intelligence will certainly change the service model of the legal industry.
In fact, the legal profession is already embracing AI as well.
In March this year, it was reported that PricewaterhouseCoopers, a well-known accounting firm (now in the legal profession), signed a 12-month contract with AI startup Harvey to develop a legal AI (artificial intelligence) system and introduce chatbots into the service to serve lawyers to improve the work efficiency of the company's 4,000 lawyers.
We are all familiar with how legal AI works, and it's the same as how lawyers work.
For many lawyers, when they get a case, they first go to the judgment document network to search for similar cases to see what the core dispute of this type of case is, what other lawyers will defend from, whether the judge will adopt the defense opinion, and what is the scale of the final judgment. Then, based on the relevant information, a complaint is written, the facts are stated, the claim is made, and the legal basis is given.
Legal AI can do all of these jobs, and they are more efficient than lawyers. Once connected to the legal document database, legal AI can retrieve millions or even tens of millions of effective judgments in a short period of time, and quickly complete the learning Xi.
Do you still need to pay 200 an hour or 500 an hour for a lawyer's consultation?
Want to consult on divorce legal issues?By retrieving millions of divorce judgments, Legal AI can give very accurate answers to divorce-related questions such as extramarital affairs, property division, child support, and child support, and can also clearly list the legal basis.
Want to consult about the crime of intentional injury?There is nothing new under the sun, as long as you accurately describe the process of the case and the results of the injury evaluation, the legal AI can always find a large number of similar cases, and then clearly give the answers you want, and give sentencing references in combination with previous judgments.
Legal AI will have a profound impact on the legal profession.
In terms of familiarity with legal provisions and the level of writing, human beings will be overshadowed in the face of legal AI. Even with legal practice skills, legal AI can quickly learn and Xi by searching for a large number of effective judgments.
This reminds us of the issue of "the establishment of an internal judgment database by the Supreme People's Court", which lawyers have recently paid more attention to
Of course, given the uniqueness and complexity of each case, it is likely that legal AI will only play a supporting role for a long time.
Therefore, both the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court and PricewaterhouseCoopers have made it clear that AI-generated content needs to be reviewed by a judge or lawyer.