Vancouver tech lawyer Ryan Black害羞草研究所檚 work with video game companies put him in a position to watch the rise of artificial intelligence in the industry.

Now he finds himself on the front lines again as his own profession grapples with the technology.

害羞草研究所淭he degree to which it was impacting game studios really surprised people,害羞草研究所� said Black, who helped the Law Society of British Columbia draft advice for lawyers about the use of AI.

害羞草研究所淭he generative (AI) revolution kind of has really hit people really hard in terms of, 害羞草研究所極h my gosh, we have to really pay attention to this now,害羞草研究所� so I would say that it害羞草研究所檚 a new thing for a lot of people,害羞草研究所� he said referring to the type of technology that can create arguments and essays based on prompts from a user.

害羞草研究所淚t doesn害羞草研究所檛 surprise me that lawyers don害羞草研究所檛 know a lot about it.害羞草研究所�

The rise of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, he said, is a 害羞草研究所渞evolutionary change to the practice of law,害羞草研究所� but a recent ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court shows lawyers must use the technology cautiously and skeptically, legal experts say.

In a costs ruling released Feb. 20 related to a child custody case, it was revealed that Vancouver lawyer Chong Ke had used ChatGPT to prepare material submitted in the case.

The material included citations to cases that don害羞草研究所檛 exist, something her opponent in the case called an AI 害羞草研究所渉allucination.害羞草研究所�

Ke told the court that discovering that the cited cases were fictitious was 害羞草研究所渕ortifying,害羞草研究所� and she quickly informed the Law Society and admitted a 害羞草研究所渓ack of knowledge of the risks害羞草研究所� of using AI to draft court submissions.

害羞草研究所淚 am now aware of the dangers of relying on Al generated materials,害羞草研究所� Ke said in an affidavit. 害羞草研究所淚 understand that this issue has arisen in other jurisdictions and that the Law Society has published materials in recent months intended to alert lawyers in B.C. to these dangers.害羞草研究所�

Ke apologized to the court and her fellow lawyers.

Her lawyer John Forstrom said in an email that the case 害羞草研究所渉as provoked significant public interest, but the substance of what happened is otherwise unremarkable.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所滻害羞草研究所檓 not sure that the case has any significant implications regarding the use of generative AI in court proceedings generally,害羞草研究所� Forstrom said.

害羞草研究所淢s. Ke害羞草研究所檚 use of AI in this case was an acknowledged mistake. The question if or how generative AI might appropriately be employed in legal work did not arise.害羞草研究所�

The society is now investigating Ke害羞草研究所檚 conduct, spokeswoman Christine Tam said in an email.

害羞草研究所淲hile recognizing the potential benefits of using AI in the delivery of legal services, the Law Society has also issued guidance to lawyers on the appropriate use of AI and expects lawyers to comply with the standards of conduct expected of a competent lawyer if they do rely on AI in serving their clients,害羞草研究所� Tam said.

The law society害羞草研究所檚 guidance, issued in late 2023, urges lawyers to seek training in the use of the technology, and be aware of confidentiality issues around data security, plagiarism and copyright concerns, and potential bias in materials produced by the technology.

Law societies and courts in other provinces and territories have also produced guidance on the use of AI. For instance, the Supreme Court of Yukon said in a June 2023 practice direction that if any lawyer relies on AI 害羞草研究所渇or their legal research or submissions in any matter and in any form,害羞草研究所� they must tell the court.

For Black, with the firm DLA Piper, the use of AI is causing a lot of 害羞草研究所渘ecessary angst about relying on a tool like this to do any real heavy lifting.害羞草研究所�

Black said delivering justice requires the impartiality of a 害羞草研究所渉uman peer,害羞草研究所� capable of evaluating and making important legally binding decisions.

He said he害羞草研究所檚 encountered lawyers and judges who are either 害羞草研究所渃ompletely dialed into it, to completely averse to it, to completely agnostic to it.害羞草研究所�

He said he害羞草研究所檚 been 害羞草研究所渋mpressed by the pace of the technology,害羞草研究所� but the need for caution and skepticism around any materials generated by the material is essential for lawyers now and into the future.

Reflecting on the Ke case and others like it, Black said tools like ChatGPT are 害羞草研究所渞eally good autocorrect tools that do a fantastic job of relating text to other text, but they have no understanding of the world, they have no understanding of reality.害羞草研究所�

UBC law professor Kristen Thomasen said in an interview that the B.C. Supreme Court case shows not only the limitations of the technology, but also the need for lawyers and other professionals 害羞草研究所渢o be critical of the technologies that they害羞草研究所檙e using.害羞草研究所�

Thomasen said evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of technology has to be done 害羞草研究所渋n spite of what is often a lot of hype.害羞草研究所�

She said it害羞草研究所檚 important not to delegate work that requires a human element to a computer system in 害羞草研究所渉igh stakes害羞草研究所� professions like law and policing where new, potentially problematic technologies should be approached and employed with caution.

Thomasen said the technology has been described as a 害羞草研究所渓iving thing害羞草研究所� or an existential threat to humanity, or thought of as a 害羞草研究所渟uperhuman ghost in the machine,害羞草研究所� but despite being highly sophisticated, it害羞草研究所檚 just doing math based on data scraped from the internet.

She said that stepping back from seeing it as a 害羞草研究所減erson害羞草研究所� would help institutions, students and teachers better understand what the technology actually does.

害羞草研究所淎s we see how it progresses, I think it makes sense to then, kind of like the law societies, keep developing more refined and detailed guidelines or rules as we gain a better understanding of what the technology looks like,害羞草研究所� she said.

The judge in the case that involved Ke said it would be 害羞草研究所減rudent害羞草研究所� for her to tell the court and opposing lawyers if any other material employed AI technology like ChatGPT.

害羞草研究所淎s this case has unfortunately made clear, generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers,害羞草研究所� Justice David Masuhara wrote in his costs ruling. 害羞草研究所淐ompetence in the selection and use of any technology tools, including those powered by AI, is critical. The integrity of the justice system requires no less.害羞草研究所�

Black said artificial intelligence technology isn害羞草研究所檛 going away, and any rules developed now will likely need changing due to the 害羞草研究所渂reakneck speed害羞草研究所� of its evolution.

害羞草研究所淲e are for sure now in a world where AI will exist,害羞草研究所� he said. 害羞草研究所淭here is no un-ringing this bell as far as I害羞草研究所檓 concerned.害羞草研究所�

READ ALSO:

READ ALSO: