Electronic Evidence and Technology-Assisted Review

We consider the technological developments relevant to procedures characterized as “discovery” in legal proceedings over the last two decades. As storage technology has improved, the idea of a “document” as a piece of discrete discoverable information is becoming increasingly outdated. The courts, while adapting to the new technologies, have also had to reckon with increasing costs of document production, and more expensively, review of information for relevance and privilege or work-product protections. Technology-Assisted Review, using machine learning, is rapidly being employed to handle large document productions. This brings eDiscovery right in line with some of the most interesting current developments in information technology

Law Schools as Knowledge Centers in the Digital Age

This article explores what it would mean for law schools to be “knowledge centers” in the digital age, and to have this as a central mission. It describes the activities of legal knowledge centers as: (1) focusing on solving real legal problems in society outside of the academy; (2) evaluating the problem-solving effectiveness of the legal knowledge being developed; (3) re-conceptualizing the structures used to represent legal knowledge, the processes through which legal knowledge is created, and the methods used to apply that knowledge; and (4) disseminating legal knowledge in ways that assist its implementation. The Article uses as extended examples of knowledge centers in the digital age the research laboratories in the sciences, and in particular research laboratories in linguistics and information science. It uses numerous examples to suggest how law schools might implement the concept of a knowledge center

Law Schools as Knowledge Centers in the Digital Age

This article explores what it would mean for law schools to be “knowledge centers” in the digital age, and to have this as a central mission. It describes the activities of legal knowledge centers as: (1) focusing on solving real legal problems in society outside of the academy; (2) evaluating the problem-solving effectiveness of the legal knowledge being developed; (3) re-conceptualizing the structures used to represent legal knowledge, the processes through which legal knowledge is created, and the methods used to apply that knowledge; and (4) disseminating legal knowledge in ways that assist its implementation. The Article uses as extended examples of knowledge centers in the digital age the research laboratories in the sciences, and in particular research laboratories in linguistics and information science. It uses numerous examples to suggest how law schools might implement the concept of a knowledge center

Teaching Law and Digital Age Legal Practice with an AI and Law Seminar

This article provides a guide and examples for using a seminar on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Law to teach lessons about legal reasoning and about legal practice in the digital age. Artificial Intelligence and Law is a subfield of AI/ computer science research that focuses on computationally modeling legal reasoning. In at least a few law schools, the AI and Law seminar has regularly taught students fundamental issues about law and legal reasoning by focusing them on the problems these issues pose for scientists attempting to computationally model legal reasoning. AI and Law researchers have designed programs to reason with legal rules, apply legal precedents, predict case outcomes, argue like a legal advocate and visualize legal arguments. The article illustrates some of the pedagogically important lessons that they have learned in the process. As the technology of legal practice catches up with the aspirations of AI and Law researchers, the AI and Law seminar can play a new role in legal education. With advances in such areas as e-discovery, legal information retrieval (IR), and semantic processing of web-based information for electronic contracting, the chances are increasing that, in their legal practices, law students will use, and even depend on, systems that employ AI techniques. As explained in the Article, an AI and Law seminar invites students to think about processes of legal reasoning and legal practice and about how those processes employ information. It teaches how the new digital documents technologies work, what they can and cannot do, how to measure performance, how to evaluate claims about the technologies, and how to be savvy consumers and users of the technologies

Los alcances de la inteligencia artificial (IA) y su responsabilidad frente al derecho y ética

Existe un acuerdo generalizado de que la tecnología marcará el futuro, el uso de la inteligencia artificial promete revolucionar múltiples áreas, transformando la vida cotidiana del ser humano, y por ello para el desarrollo de esta nueva tecnología, los países desarrollados y subdesarrollados están trabajando en una regulación mediante la implementación de un enfoque ético, para fortalecer el entorno de la inteligencia artificial y así proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, estandarizando una base de principios articulados sobre la dignidad humana, lo que tiene una implicación en la administración de justicia a los debates generales para lograr una regulación global en el que se determinan las conveniencias y dificultades de la tecnología artificial en el que determinemos las implicaciones y posibles efectos de la tecnología artificial.Universidad Libre - Facultad de Derecho - Especialización en Derecho ProcesalThere is widespread agreement that technology will mark the future, the use of artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize multiple areas, transforming the daily life of human beings, and therefore for the development of this new technology, developed and underdeveloped countries are working on a regulation through the implementation of an ethical approach, to strengthen the environment of artificial intelligence and thus protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, standardizing a base of principles articulated on human dignity, which has an implication in the administration of justice to the general debates to achieve a global regulation in which we determine the convenience and difficulties of artificial technology in which we determine the implications and possible effects of artificial technology

Augmented lawyering

How will artificial intelligence (“AI”) and associated digital technologies reshape the work of lawyers and structure of law firms? Legal services are traditionally provided by highly-skilled humans—that is, lawyers. Dramatic recent progress in AI has triggered speculation about the extent to which automated systems may come to replace humans in legal services. A related debate is whether the legal profession’s adherence to the partnership form inhibits capital-raising necessary to invest in new technology. This Article presents what is to our knowledge the most comprehensive empirical study yet conducted into the implementation of AI in legal services, encompassing interview-based case studies and survey data. We focus on two inter-related issues: how the nature of legal services work will change, and how the firms that co-ordinate this work will be organized. A central theme is that prior debate focusing on the “human vs technology” aspect of change overlooks the way in which technology is transforming the human dimensions of legal services. Our analysis of the impact of AI on legal services work suggests that while it will replace humans in some tasks, it will also change the work of those who are not replaced. It will augment the capabilities of human lawyers who use AI-enabled services as inputs to their work and generate new roles for legal experts in producing these AI-enabled services. We document these new roles being clustered in multidisciplinary teams (“MDTs”) that mix legal with a range of other disciplinary inputs to augment the operation of technical systems. We identify challenges for traditional law firm partnerships in implementing AI. Contrary to prior debate, these do not flow from constraints on finance to invest in technical assets. Rather, the central problems have to do with human capital: making necessary strategic decisions; recruiting, coordination and motivation the necessary MDTs; and adjusting professional boundaries. These findings have important implications for lawyers, law firms and the legal profession

Failing to Keep the Cat in the Bag: A Decennial Assessment of Federal Rule of Evidence 502\u27s Impact on Forfeiture of Legal Privilege Under Customary Waiver Doctrine

Federal Rule of Evidence 502—providing certain exemptions from the surrender of attorney-client and work product privilege because a confidential item was disclosed—had great expectations to live up to after its enactment in 2008, as Congress and others heralded it as a panacea to litigation’s woes in the face of bourgeoning discovery. The enacted rule was the subject of much skepticism by the academic punditocracy, however. Ten years later, this Article surveys the actual results and finds that, regrettably, pessimism has proven the better prediction. Percolation of debate over the rule’s many ambiguities and courts’ disparate approaches have not resolved initial critiques, but only diversified their targets and fostered new bubbles of confusion, conflict, and consternation. That said, FRE 502 has indeed improved some aspects of the state of the law of privilege—and may do more as consensus matures—but has still left jurisprudence well short of the ideals dreamt of under its framers’ vision. Nonetheless, the game is worth the candle: The pursuit of a more perfect privilege vindicates the essential individual rights of Lockean society, and the ongoing quest thus reflects that of civilization itself

Failing to Keep the Cat in the Bag: A Decennial Assessment of Federal Rule of Evidence 502\u27s Impact on Forfeiture of Legal Privilege Under Customary Waiver Doctrine

Federal Rule of Evidence 502—providing certain exemptions from the surrender of attorney-client and work product privilege because a confidential item was disclosed—had great expectations to live up to after its enactment in 2008, as Congress and others heralded it as a panacea to litigation’s woes in the face of bourgeoning discovery. The enacted rule was the subject of much skepticism by the academic punditocracy, however. Ten years later, this Article surveys the actual results and finds that, regrettably, pessimism has proven the better prediction. Percolation of debate over the rule’s many ambiguities and courts’ disparate approaches have not resolved initial critiques, but only diversified their targets and fostered new bubbles of confusion, conflict, and consternation. That said, FRE 502 has indeed improved some aspects of the state of the law of privilege—and may do more as consensus matures—but has still left jurisprudence well short of the ideals dreamt of under its framers’ vision. Nonetheless, the game is worth the candle: The pursuit of a more perfect privilege vindicates the essential individual rights of Lockean society, and the ongoing quest thus reflects that of civilization itself