As generative AI technology, such as ChatGPT, continues to evolve, its application in various sectors is expanding, including in legal proceedings. Recently, Queensland has joined Victoria, New Zealand, and England in issuing guidelines on how non-lawyers can responsibly use generative AI in court settings.
Earlier this year, a plaintiff in Queensland’s Supreme Court used ChatGPT to add "flourish" to his legal submissions. Justice Elizabeth Wilson noted that the AI-assisted submissions helped in their organizational structure. However, the guidelines emphasize that generative AI is not a substitute for a qualified lawyer and cannot provide tailored legal advice.
The guidelines released by Queensland Courts highlight several critical aspects:
Accuracy and Reliability: Generative AI chatbots can provide inaccurate information, especially regarding Australian law. Users are cautioned against relying solely on AI for legal information.
Confidentiality and Privacy: Users should avoid entering any private, confidential, suppressed, or legally privileged information into AI chatbots.
Capabilities and Limitations: While AI can assist in preparing legal documents by organizing facts and improving formatting, grammar, and tone, it is not equipped to offer tailored legal advice or understand the nuances of individual cases.
Queensland Chief Justice Helen Bowskill underscored the importance of the guidelines in drawing attention to both the strengths and limitations of generative AI. The guidelines aim to ensure users check for accuracy and remain mindful of confidentiality concerns.
Queensland University of Technology professor Anna Huggins, who provided recommendations for the guidelines, noted the importance of understanding AI tools' nature, the datasets they are trained on, and their specific strengths and limitations.
Queensland University of Technology associate professor Michael Guihot highlighted the potential of AI to improve access to justice, particularly for those unable to afford legal representation. AI can help individuals organize their arguments and present them in a clear, logical manner, potentially increasing their chances of fair representation.
The use of AI in legal settings is not without risks. For instance, a US lawyer faced legal trouble for submitting fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT. This incident underscores the importance of human oversight in using AI for legal research and document preparation.
Queensland Law Society (QLS) chief executive Matt Dunn emphasized that while AI can help lawyers work more efficiently, it cannot replace the nuanced understanding and application of law that experienced lawyers provide. QLS plans to release separate guidance for lawyers on using AI responsibly, ensuring that practitioners remain aware of ethical and confidentiality obligations.
The introduction of guidelines for the use of generative AI by non-lawyers in Queensland reflects a cautious but optimistic approach to integrating advanced technology into the legal system. While AI can offer significant benefits in terms of organization and access to information, the legal community must remain vigilant about its limitations and potential risks. As the technology evolves, ongoing dialogue and updated guidelines will be essential to ensure its responsible and effective use in legal contexts.
