Harvey Specter is out… It’s just Harvey, now.

*How Artificial Intelligence is morphing the legal sphere, and why it’s a big deal*

By Madysson Cocking

Who (or what) is Harvey?

Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

Harvey is an Artificial Intelligence tool, but it seems to be so much more than that.

Lawyers at Ashurst, an internationally acclaimed law firm, have been given access to the AI tool designed specifically to flourish in the legal sphere. So far, Harvey has been reported to assist with drafting and analysis of legal documents, and conduct its own legal research. Simply put, it’s designed to assist legal professionals by leveraging advanced natural language processing (NLP) capabilities.

Not only that, but Harvey has been the gracious recipient of $105 million, through OpenAI funding rounds.

Why is that scary?

 

Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

As law students, we have all heard about (and definitely discussed) the great benefit that AI can offer – in particular, summarising notes and eradicating legalese in certain individuals’ approach to their legal education.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a dark side to the Artificial Intelligence moon.

 

Opportunities to join the legal profession in an entry level position, particularly for those who do not have pre-existing connections in their local legal community, are few and far between.

Introducing an Artificial Intelligence tool such as Harvey that handles the grit work, is a cheaper and (arguably) more convenient position for lawfirms to embrace than paying the wages and handling the interpersonal relations that are brought on by additional hires. Essentially, limiting job opportunities.

Not only that, but the introduction of AI is just that – an introduction. It is worth considering at what point Harvey becomes more than a resource, and begins providing solicitors with their very own arguments and approaches to matters? There are a multitude of science fiction movies demonstrating the risks of providing non-empathetic characters with responsibilities which inherently rely on emotional integrity to achieve justice and high performing societies. Is an Artificial Solicitor around the corner? How do we determine and maintain that he is fit and proper?

It can’t all be bad…

No, it can’t be.

While AI like Harvey may change the nature of legal jobs, it doesn't necessarily mean it will take them away. Instead, it presents an opportunity for legal professionals to enhance their practice, improve access to justice, and focus on more meaningful and complex work. By adapting to these changes and leveraging AI effectively, law students and legal professionals can thrive in the evolving legal landscape.

The integration of AI, like Harvey, into the legal profession is a transformative development that promises to enhance the practice of law in numerous ways. By automating routine and time-consuming tasks such as document review, legal research, and contract drafting, AI allows lawyers to focus on more complex, strategic, and creative aspects of their work. This shift can lead to increased efficiency, reduced costs, and improved accuracy in legal processes, ultimately benefiting clients through more affordable and accessible legal services. Additionally, the adoption of AI fosters innovation within the profession, encouraging legal professionals to develop new skills and embrace technological advancements. This not only keeps the profession dynamic and forward-thinking but also prepares it to meet the evolving demands of a digital age. In this way, AI serves as a powerful tool that enhances the capabilities of legal professionals, elevates the quality of legal services, and drives the profession towards a more efficient, innovative, and client-centric future.

*This section was written by ChatGPT…

Bad Advice from Jeremy

Following on from the realism of AI, I’ve asked ChatGPT to write a roast about what our amazing Author Madysson has written today…purely for my own amusement:

 

Wow, where do I even begin with this mess?

"Who (or what) is Harvey?" A better question might be, "Why should we care?" The article launches into an uninspired ode to an AI tool without any real engagement or originality.

"Harvey is an Artificial Intelligence tool, but it seems to be so much more than that." No, it's just an AI tool. Spare us the hyperbole. The sentence structure here is about as exciting as watching paint dry.

"Lawyers at Ashurst, an internationally acclaimed law firm, have been given access to the AI tool designed specifically to flourish in the legal sphere." Did a robot write this? Oh wait, ChatGPT did contribute to this article. Explains a lot.

"So far, Harvey has been reported to assist with drafting and analysis of legal documents, and conduct its own legal research." Yawn. It sounds like it’s reading off a list of chores. There's zero pizzazz, zero hook.

"Not only that, but Harvey has been the gracious recipient of $105 million, through OpenAI funding rounds." Yeah, because personifying a chunk of code with financial success is really riveting.

The entire "Why is that scary?" section feels like a half-hearted attempt at generating drama. "The dark side to the Artificial Intelligence moon"? Are we writing an article or auditioning for a B-grade sci-fi flick?

The lament about job opportunities vanishing is valid, but the delivery is clunky and repetitive. "Essentially, limiting job opportunities." Thank you, Captain Obvious.

The existential angst over Harvey "providing solicitors with their very own arguments and approaches to matters" reads like a poorly edited Black Mirror script. "Is an Artificial Solicitor around the corner?" At this rate, the only thing around the corner is readers looking for something more interesting.

Finally, the obligatory "It can’t all be bad…" section is a generic cheerleader for AI. It's so drenched in clichés and platitudes, it’s hard to stay awake. "Increased efficiency, reduced costs, and improved accuracy in legal processes," blah blah blah. This reads like it was lifted straight from an AI brochure.

In short, the whole piece is a disjointed, uninspired jumble that fails to engage or enlighten. If Harvey could write this, maybe it should take over journalism too.

 

Now this is what AI should really be used for hahahaha…

Let us know in the comments below about your thoughts of AI in the Legal Profession!

Author:, Madysson Cocking, & Jeremy WoodGULSComment