Caveat Lector: Large Language Models in Legal Practice

The current fascination with large language models, or LLMs, derives from the fact that many users lack the expertise to evaluate the quality of the generated text. LLMs may therefore appear more capable than they actually are. The dangerous combination of fluency and superficial plausibility leads to the temptation to trust the generated text and creates the risk of overreliance. Who would not trust perfect legalese? Relying recent findings in both technical and legal scholarship, this Article counterbalances the overly optimistic predictions as to the role of LLMs in legal practice. Integrating LLMs into legal workstreams without a better comprehension of their limitations, will create inefficiencies if not outright risks. Notwithstanding their unprecedented ability to generate text, LLMs do not understand text. Without the ability to understand meaning, LLMs will remain unable to use language, to acquire knowledge and to perform complex reasoning tasks. Trained to model language on the basis of stochastic word predictions, LLMs cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Their knowledge of the law is limited to word strings memorized in their parameters. It is also incomplete and largely incorrect. LLMs operate at the level of word distributions, not at the level of verified facts. The resulting propensity to hallucinate, to produce statements that are incorrect but appear helpful and relevant, is alarming in high-risk areas like legal services. At present, lawyers should beware of relying on text generated by LLMs.Comment: Vol 19 Rutgers Bus L R 2 2024 (forthcoming

The Limits of Visual Law

Not every legal rule can and should be visualized. The limits of visualization are set by the substance of the legal rule in question and the characteristics of the addressee, including the context in which he or she encounters the visual representation of the rule. Too complex a visualization – and the very purpose of visualization is lost as it does not present an improvement over the original, textual expression of the rule. Too simple (or simplistic?) a visualization – and the substance of the legal rule may be reduced or modified to a point that it becomes misleading and prone to misdirect action. At a basic level, the visualization of legal rules must not understate or overstate the risks of non-compliance, it must adequately inform and guide behavior. Consequently, we must not only select the best method of visualizing a given rule but also select the rules that are the best candidates for visualization

Certainty at Last? a “New†Framework for Electronic Contracting in Singapore

Singapore is the first Asian country to accede to the UNCITRAL Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. Singapore is not only the first Asian nation to accede to the CUECIC but also the first nation to implement some of its provisions locally. It is these provisions that are the subject of this paper. The ETA is significantly wider in scope than the Convention, as it deals not only with electronic contracting but also with the use of electronic communications in the public sector, the liability of network service providers and the remote authentication procedures.[1] This paper examines how the provisions transplanted from the Convention interface with the principles of contract law. Do they create the long-awaited “certainty†in the controversial field of e-commerce? As Singapore’s contract law is predominantly based on English common law, the problems discussed herein will be encountered in any legal system relying on similar principle. [1] Joint IDA-AGC Review of the Electronic Transactions Act Proposed Amendments, 2009, (“Joint Reviewâ€) para 2.16.3

Book Review: Drafting and Negotiating IT Contracts, 3rd Ed

This book is basic. Basic in the good sense: it is the first go-to work for IT professionals, especially procurement or contract managers and possibly also for lawyers that are starting their careers in the field of negotiating and drafting IT contracts. ACCESS PDF FILE FOR FULL REVIEW

E-Commerce Regulation: Necessity, Futility, Disconnect

This work is an extended version of a paper of the same name, presented at the First International Conference on Technologies and Law, 8 & 9 November 2013 in Porto, Portugal; published in the conference proceedings; I. Portela, et al eds., 2013 Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, Barcelos.</p