Artificial Intelligence (AI), has been reshaping the legal landscape in various jurisdictions at a fast pace. They can write pleadings, summarize precedents, do legal research, and help lawyers to prepare court papers. Certain issues have arisen about accuracy, accountability, confidentiality, and professional ethics regarding the use of AI in litigation. The question arises is whether it would be desirable for courts to “regulate” the use of
“
AI-generated pleadings. My view is that the use of AI-generated pleadings should be regulated rather than prohibited by courts.
Judicial regulation is required to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and to take advantage of technological advancements in the field while still enabling professionals to engage in the same.
In India, Judiciary has significant workload and limited resources. AI can help lawyers, litigants, and even courts to more efficiently manage legal information. Concurrently, the guarantees of fairness, due process and access to justice in the Constitution call for attention to the development of new technologies. Supreme Court has over and again stressed the need for the observance of fair procedures and the duty of the legal fraternity. A model for pleadings drafted through artificial intelligence should thus be grounded in constitutional principles, professional values and neutrality towards technology.
“
AI, instead of being seen as a threat, should be seen as a tool which needs supervised use by Indian Courts with care.
AI has become more and more a part of legal services. AI is used for document review, contract analysis, legal research, and contract generation. AI can be used by individual practitioners and litigants, in drafting pleadings and legal propositions. AI can save a lot of time in drafting legal documents. It can also help to reduce the litigation costs and also enhance access to legal information. AI can improve access to justice in India having heavy caseloads and limited legal aid. There are however significant disadvantages to these benefits. We have large pool of Advocates, who can work in a better way than machine-based products.
The issue that is most critical is the phenomenon known as “AI Hallucination”. There are several cases where AI-generated fictional cases and quotations appeared in pleadings before the courts. The accuracy of statements of law and fact is critical to judicial decision making. Unreliable AI submissions could also potentially lead to greater burdens on judges if they have to review non-reliable imaginary pleadings. Such level of pleadings will lead to incorrect decisions, increased judicial burden. Instead of helping the profession, it may lead to extra work for the court, as every word will require verification. The AI will lead to the need for courts to review non-reliable.
Advocates are officers of the court, and are responsible to provide diligence pleadings and opinions. The overreliance on AI can reduce the value of such professional responsibilities. AI shouldn’t be a way for lawyers to avoid responsibility. While technology can certainly assist in legal advocacy, human judgment is still essential as law is not just a matter of facts and figures, but also involves interpretation, ethics, contextual and creative reasoning
Issues of confidentiality, privacy – Personal or commercial is important as also. information is frequently included in legal pleadings even before the matter is before the Court. Sensitive content that is uploaded to third-party AI services could be subject to privacy leaks or improper processing. The court, at present, has no mechanism to safeguard the information of litigants. The AI tools are capable of misuse as the data will be in public domain. These are potential risks that do not align with client privacy standards.
AI systems are trained on large data bases which might include social, cultural, or institutional biases. This bias can impact on the content created and may even affect legal arguments.
“
The use of AI-generated pleadings could lead to issues of fairness and equal treatment under the law if it becomes commonplace without regulation. Technology must not further perpetuate discrimination or unequal treatment by the judicial system.
In case of prohibition or strict regulation of use of AI in pleadings will hinder innovation. AI, like legal databases, word processors or research software, is a tool. Technology has always been used to assist legal professionals in their practice. Super-regulation may deter desirable experimentation and lead to higher compliance costs. Moreover, outright prohibition could harm the litigants who can rely on AI to learn the law and create simple legal documents for the court. AI can be a valuable aid in an already challenging justice system. The issue is not prohibition, but about responsible governance.
Courts have a unique role to play in regulating AI-Generated Pleadings. Courts have inherent powers to maintain the integrity of the judicial proceeding and to regulate proceedings. AI-created pleadings have a direct impact on the administration of justice and are thus subject to proper judicial oversight.
The are reasons for requiring regulation-
Firstly, courts need to make sure that the documents that are submitted to them are reliable. Pleadings are crucial to judges finding legal issues and relevant authorities. Any technology that could affect the accuracy needs to be monitored.
Secondly, regulation promotes accountability. Content of pleadings is still the responsibility of human actors, and not AI systems. Clear rules provide clarity for lawyers and litigants of what they are expected to do.
Thirdly, regulation increases the public trust in the justice system. It is important that citizens can be sure that the judgment reached is the result of an accurate legal argument and not of the product of a machine.
The Court may order disclosure of the use of AI where the AI was used in the preparation of pleadings. This transparency enables courts to evaluate risks and ensure fairness in the proceedings. Advocates may be asked to certify that all documents, legal authority and fact statements have been independently verified by a human reader. This assures professional responsibility.
Direct the courts and bar councils to provide guidelines on the use of confidential information in AI systems. It is important to ensure that sensitive information of the parties is not fed into public AI platforms.
“
There is a need to educate lawyers on the capabilities and the limitations of the AI tools. The use of technology is increasingly becoming part of working competently.
The courts may issue practice directions that define what is acceptable and not acceptable in the use of AI in litigation. Consistency and uniformity would ease uncertainty and promote consistency among jurisdictions.
The courts must carefully and judiciously impose safeguards to govern the use of AI-generated pleadings. Regulation is necessary, but it needs to be about transparency, human verification, professional responsibility and data protection, not outright prohibition.
Thus, the Court needs to prepare for the future challenges in the use of AI in pleadings.