Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly embedded in legal practice and business operations with the intensified implementation of generative AI tools and in-house, proprietary language learning models. The legal profession, in turn, faces new challenges and opportunities in upholding high standards of professionalism and ethics in relation to the use of AI. While questions of liability are important, the foundation of responsible AI adoption lies in the ethical duties lawyers owe their clients, the court, and the community at large.
Ethical Imperative in AI Adoption
Lawyers are entrusted with protecting client interests, upholding confidentiality, and exercising sound judgment. With the integration of AI into business and legal workflows – from document review to predictive analytics – the responsibilities and privileges of attorney/client are not diminished. Rather, it demands heightened vigilance.
Key ethical considerations in AI use include:
- Competence: Lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools. Technological competence, in addition to other areas of aptitude, is now a core aspect of legal professionalism that requires ongoing education, evaluation, and due diligence.
- Confidentiality: Protecting client information is vital. AI systems, both internal and external, must be carefully vetted for data security. Lawyers must ensure that sensitive and privileged information is not inadvertently exposed or misused.
- Supervision and Oversight: Delineating and delegating tasks to AI does not absolve lawyers of responsibility. Meaningful oversight is paramount to ensure that AI generated outputs are accurate, fair, and aligned with legal standards.
- Fairness and Bias: AI algorithms can unfortunately perpetuate or amplify biases present in training data, in addition to its ability to hallucinate, embellish, or exaggerate. Lawyers who remain alert to these risks take steps to mitigate discriminatory outcomes.
Building a Culture of Professionalism in AI Usage
Responsible, ethical AI adoption begins with organization-wide policies and a culture of accountability. This can include:
- Developing clear guidelines for evaluating and implementing AI technology.
- Conducting exhaustive due diligence on vendors and software providers.
- Training staff on ethical risks, procedures, and best practices in AI use.
- Documenting decision-making processes and maintaining transparency in client services and communications.
By building an environment where ethical considerations are prioritized, firms and corporations can harness the benefits of AI while minimizing risks to clients and the profession.
AI Compliance: Navigating Evolving Standards
Regulatory bodies and professional organization issue guidance on AI use in business and legal practice, emphasizing the need for competence, confidentiality, and oversight. Staying informed is critical for compliance and risk management. Organizations and firms should regularly review ethical opinions, regulatory updates, and industry best practices to ensure their policies remain current and compliant.
Liability as an Ethical Concern
AI liability remains a related issue. When generative AI systems make mistakes, questions of responsibility arise. Counsel must be prepared to advise on the evolving legal frameworks that govern AI liability, including product liability and negligence. Practical ethical practices can assist in preventing liability issues before they arise.
Galloway’s Commitment to Ethical AI Guidance
Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith is dedicated to guiding clients through the complexities of cyber and technology law, AI adoption, and other emerging legal technologies. The firm’s steadfast commitment to professionalism and ethical integrity is exemplified through its early adoption and continued innovation – responsibly and ethical – ahead of technological trends and regulatory changes.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
