In a year-end report published on Sunday, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts expressed a nuanced perspective on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal field, urging "caution and humility" as this evolving technology transforms the practices of judges and lawyers.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his 13-page report, adopted an ambivalent tone regarding AI's influence on the legal profession. He acknowledged the potential benefits of AI, such as improving access to justice for indigent litigants, revolutionizing legal research, and aiding courts in expeditiously and cost-effectively resolving cases. However, he also highlighted privacy concerns and emphasized the current technology's limitations in replicating human discretion.
While expressing confidence in the continued presence of human judges, Roberts asserted that AI would significantly impact judicial work, particularly at the trial level.
This commentary from the chief justice marks his most substantial discussion to date on the intersection of AI and the law. It coincides with numerous lower courts grappling with how to adapt to a technology capable of passing the bar exam but susceptible to generating fictitious content, referred to as "hallucinations."
Roberts stressed the need for "caution and humility" in any use of AI. He cited an example where AI hallucinations led lawyers to reference non-existent cases in court papers, deeming it "always a bad idea." The chief justice did not provide additional details but noted that the phenomenon "made headlines this year."
Instances of lawyers inadvertently including AI-generated content, such as fictitious case citations, in official court filings have been reported. Michael Cohen, the former attorney for Donald Trump, recently acknowledged mistakenly incorporating fake case citations generated by an AI program in court papers.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans proposed a rule last month aimed at regulating the use of generative AI tools, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, by lawyers appearing before the court. The proposed rule would require lawyers to certify that they either did not rely on AI programs to draft briefs or that humans reviewed the accuracy of any AI-generated text in their court filings.
