Ethics – An International Comparison on the use of AI in the Legal Sector

I- The positive impact of AI on the legal practice
a. AI-powered legal service demonstrates modernization (showing that the legal professional is up to date with legal tech);
b. It demonstrates efficiency (by automating repetitive tasks and reducing manual workload) and a commitment to innovation (it can predict judicial outcomes);
c. It enhances research capabilities by quickly identifying relevant case law, precedents and regulatory updates and reduces the need for manual document analysis. It reduces contract review time from hours to minutes as it automates routine contract checks and compliance reviews, allowing lawyers to focus on more substantive legal work.
II- Ethical Challenges associated with the use of AI by legal professionals
a. Data privacy and security: Lawyers to protect client information when using AI tools, such as using secure platforms.
b. Bias and fairness: AI systems can perpetuate biases present in the data they are trained on, leading to unfair and unjust outcomes. Lawyers must be vigilant in identifying and mitigating this bias to ensure fair outcomes.
c. Hallucinations: AI can produce inaccurate outputs, a phenomenon known as “hallucination”. Lawyers must verify the accuracy of AI-generated content.
d. Copyright and intellectual property issues.
III- Ethical challenges associated with the failure to use AI by legal professionals
a. Technological Obsolescence and Client harm: Lack of technological literacy may compromise client service.
b. Duty of technological competence: Lawyers must maintain an evolving understanding of AI tools relevant to their area of practice.
IV- Regulatory and ethical frameworks
a. In the US: The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and other State Bars’ positions on AI.
b. In Europe:
i. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024)
ii. In UK: The Bar Council and Law Society of England and Wales: New guidance on generative AI for the Bar.
iii. In France: CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés)
iv. In Germany: The Federal Bar Association (BRAK)
v. In Netherlands: Judicial AI Lab (JAIL) and the AI in the Legal Profession Program
c. In India: National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (NITI Aayog 2018) and the Digital India Act (expected in 2025)
d. In the UAE:
i. The UAE’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2031
ii. The Dubai Future Foundation and UAE Council for AI and Digital Transactions
V- Best practices for the ethical use of AI in legal practice
a. Foundational technology literacy: Lawyers to possess functional knowledge of relevant digital and AI tools
b. Continuous education: Ongoing training in legal technology
c. Risk management: Due diligence on data handling and accuracy verification
d. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Working with AI experts
e. Client communication and billing transparency: Disclose AI use and clarify fee structures where AI improves efficiency
f. Confidentiality and data protection
g. Human oversight, supervision and delegation: AI augments human judgement – it does not replace legal responsibility
h. Avoidance of bias: Implement safeguard to detect, measure and correct AI bias.