Revolutionizing Rights: AI and the Future of Legal Equality — Spotlight on Prof. Jennifer Albright
Exploring a new perspective on legal issues requires the insight of a well-versed expert, so to discuss how artificial intelligence impacts law and the judiciary, we turn to Prof. Jennifer Albright
The post is part of a new limited series of blog posts and podcasts presented by the Thomson Reuters Institute, Revolutionizing Rights: AI and the Future of Legal Equality, that will provide perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal sphere
Professor Jennifer Albright, a Professor of Practice at the University of Arizona and Director of the Center for Forensics and Artificial Intelligence at the Arizona Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of Courts, brings more than 25 years of academic experience in the field of legal education to her role, complemented by an extensive tenure within court administration and a practical background in law practice.
Prof. Albright’s broad expertise affords her a distinctive viewpoint, enabling her to analyze the legal domain through three distinct perspectives: as an educator, an administrator, and a practitioner. This diverse professional background positions her ideally to address the complexities and wide-ranging applications of artificial intelligence.
Integrating AI into the legal ecosystem
Prof. Albright carefully evaluates both the potential benefits and risks of integrating AI into our legal framework, emphasizing the importance of a broader view. While AI may serve a purpose in the preliminary stages and preparation of cases, she says it should not have the final say in decisions, asserting that this responsibility should remain with a human judge.
Indeed, when it comes to the judiciary moving along the spectrum of AI, it may be just beginning to explore the technology’s potential. “I think the courts are still on the first step,” Prof. Albright says, adding that the concept of an evolution is not yet apparent.
Courts do appear to have adopted chatbots, optical character recognition technology, and electronic filing systems to alleviate some of the workload associated with document management, she says, noting that this has been done though a meeting of innovation and necessity. Looking ahead with a sense of optimism, Prof. Albright says the next phase for the courts would likely focus on enhancing engagement and information exchange between the public, as well as other interested parties, allowing for basic inquiries to be addressed more efficiently.
Prof. Jennifer Albright
“Opinions on [AI’s] positive effects are split, with data accuracy and the type of information processed being concerns. Nevertheless, lawyers, particularly those in large firms or in-house counsel roles, recognize the benefits AI can offer.”
One of the reasons why Prof. Albright takes a holistic approach to AI in the legal domain is that she recognizes the different types and levels of AI assistance that can be applied to various tasks and situations. She does not treat AI as a monolithic entity, but rather as a spectrum of tools that can range from simple automation to complex generation. For example, the AI tools she mentioned above can help with document management and information exchange, but AI-driven assistance also can help with form completion and basic pleadings, she explains.
However, Prof. Albright also draws a line between AI assistance and AI decision-making, arguing that human judges should retain the ultimate authority and responsibility for legal outcomes. She is aware of the potential benefits and risks of AI, as well as the ethical and social implications of its use. Therefore, her commentary covers all AI-driven assistance, not just generative AI, because she understands the nuances and complexities of AI in the legal domain.
The most promising aspect of the court’s embrace of new technology is the potential to enhance the involvement of various participants in the legal progress. “I am optimistic that we will develop methods to particularly support self-represented litigants, individuals without access to legal counsel, as well as those in states that permit non-lawyers to engage in legal practice, by providing resources that enable the completion of forms and basic pleadings with perhaps the aid of AI-driven assistance,” she says.
Courts need to stay current with AI development
People commonly wonder what becomes of courts that fail to adapt or lag behind. “They will manage to operate on certain levels, but it seems that all courts at every level are joining the discussion about modernizing,” Prof. Albright says. “For instance, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has teamed up with Thomson Reuters, and they have an AI forum. NCSC has also established an AI rapid-response team. Their goal is to assist courts in understanding how to engage with these advancements.” She contends that these types of alliances prove invaluable to making sure no one jurisdiction lags too far behind the others.
When considering the wider legal sector, there’s slightly more complexity. According to Thomson Reuters 2nd annual Future of Professionals Report, 64% of government respondents consider AI advantageous in their field. “Opinions on its positive effects are split, with data accuracy and the type of information processed being concerns,” Prof. Albright explains. “Nevertheless, lawyers, particularly those in large firms or in-house counsel roles, recognize the benefits AI can offer.”
“I think the courts are still on the first step” of AI development and the concept of an “evolution” is not yet apparent.
AI is transforming the legal sector in various ways, from automating document review to enhancing access to justice. Courts are not immune to this transformational wave and need to adapt to the new challenges and opportunities that AI brings. By collaborating with experts, researchers, and practitioners, courts can leverage AI to improve their efficiency, transparency, and fairness, while safeguarding the rights and interests of the public. AI should be seen as not a threat to the judicial system, but a tool to enhance it.
As Prof. Albright has observed, AI can help courts to deliver more consistent, timely, and accessible justice, while also enabling them to monitor and evaluate their own performance and accountability. However, she also warns that AI is not a panacea, and that courts must be vigilant about the ethical, legal, and social implications of using AI, such as ensuring its reliability, explainability, and human oversight.
Therefore, courts should adopt AI with caution and care, while seeking to balance its benefits and risks.
The Southeastern M&A/Private Equity Forum is the premier gathering of mid-market deals professionals throughout the Southeastern US. Our program imparts …
