(first published on LinkedIn. Photo by RODNAE Productions: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-wearing-face-mask-while-holding-pink-placard-with-message-6257032/)

Today, 20 February 2023 and my timeline is flooded with ChatGPT opinions and #legaltech. I’ve seen no fewer than three separate polls about whether ChatGPT will disrupt #law and #legaleducation.

There are some fantastic summaries of the situation, specifically as it relates to both Australia and New Zealand. If you’re not yet up to speed on what all the fuss is about, go read them.

Technology is scary

In 2014, I attended the Queensland Law Society’s Symposium. It’s an annual CPD conference and event, where the topics are a litmus test on the emotions of the Queensland law profession in that moment. In 2014, the mood of the room was fear.

Google had just updated its Search Engine algorithm to be much smarter than it had been previously. Many businesses had already made the switch to cloud services, lawyers were also seeing an increase in cyber-attacks, and Electronic Conveyancing was taking off in other Australian states. Lawyers at that time had good cause for their apprehension. Many felt unprepared for the fate that new technology would bring about, and feared for their future livelihoods.

By 2018 the mood had shifted remarkably from fear to positive excitement. Conversations with lawyers turned from worry about their jobs to genuine interest in how to harness technology to better suit their clients. Suddenly, new technologies were about new opportunities for legal service delivery.

This difference in 4 years was stark.

There are certainly many parallels between 2014 with cloud services and unfamiliar technologies and now with ChatGPT. The general mood is a mixture, with those familiar with the Sigmoid Function and how it is used to explain technology adoption looking eagerly to the future, and those who are genuinely interested in the technology but have no reference point to place its meaning and so responding with apprehension.

We all agree that ChatGPT is significant for law

One thing is certain, we all seem to agree that the significance of ChatGPT for law is profound. Many, however, have yet to articulate why.

Some examples of how ChatGPT may be readily used in the law firm context include:

1. As a legal research tool to generate summaries for voluminous texts.
2. As a way to automate document production from a library of precedents.
3. Create chat experiences to assist with client onboarding.
4. Document review, as AI is already being used in discovery and contract management.

These are great use-cases for the technology. One things stands out, however. This is not disruptive technology for lawyers, ChatGPT is likely to be sustaining in the law firm context.

#justicetech is set for disruption

One fundamental area that is both free from and neglected by the corporate interests of efficiency of legal process is that of justice. While justice is what people “purchase” when dealing with a lawyer (according to Richard and David Susskind in The Future of the Professions), legal services are much more extensive. This is something I’m hoping to explore more in my current research.

The “missing middle” is of great concern for access to justice. It represents the growing number of people in our society who do not seek professional legal advice and support. They are likely to not qualify for Legal Aid but do not have ample funds or education to consult a solicitor.

As the law is complex, a tool to assist the most vulnerable in simply navigating their circumstances in the legal context has the potential to have significant impact. Enter: Microsoft’s announcement in enhancing online searching with ChatGPT.

For those concerned, it isn’t there yet. You can’t ask Bing to arbitrate a lease dispute or summarise the obligations in a contract. Yet.

But this potential is something that is likely to disrupt – dislodge the current “status quo” of justice and provide access to justice for the missing middle. Armed with information summarised helpfully by artificial intelligence, it is likely that there will be an increase in unrepresented applicants as well as respondents. The law itself will see a shift and Parliament will have cause to make laws as more parties attempt transactions without the oversight of those formally trained humans called lawyers.

In conclusion, ChatGPT does not herald an age of disruption for the legal profession directly. Instead, it is more likely to disrupt how justice is administered for those who would never interact with the legal profession to begin with. Armed with a new superpower of AI, more individuals will interact with the law, and this is where the course will change for both lawyers and society.