Lawyers warn against ‘over-reach’ as WA considers imposing rules on artificial intelligence use in legal cases

Lawyers are urging WA’s Supreme Court to not take a heavy-handed approach to rules on the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, while conceding its pitfalls are “real”. The court has called for input from the profession on what they believe would be appropriate use of generative AI computer programs, as it considers joining other States in imposing directions for its use. Tech such as Chat GPT and Gemini can generate content such as text in response to prompts, and is saving legal eagles huge amounts of time by summarising vast amounts information. But it does not possess reasoning capabilities and can churn out outdated legal references or fabricated case law citations — sometimes referred to as “hallucinations” — to justify its outputs. Perth lawyer Oliver Paxman is an early adopter, even using AI Legal Assistant to summarise 3000 pages of transcript from a recent high profile trial for his closing address. He also gets it to transcribe video records of interview — searching for admissions by clients — and uses that as the basis of draft affidavits, which are sworn statements to the courts. “I might use it to do some of the preliminary work,” Mr Paxman told The Sunday Times. “But at the end of the day, you always have to sit down with a client and go through it sentence by sentence to make sure it’s true and accurate. “You’ve got to be really careful what you use it for. “Things do go wrong. The danger is real.” There are also concerns that because many AI tools require users to input queries and documents into external systems, confidential information could be exposed. But lawyers say that with care and a human brain having the final say, it can save enormous amounts of time and therefore clients lots of money. Law Society of WA chief executive Kate Wellington said she hoped any new rules in WA would not stifle the use of AI as it could drive major efficiencies in an overburdened court system. “This is such a complex and important issue — we have to ensure that a practice note is not issued prematurely,” she said. “We must develop a framework in which lawyers can use AI safely and securely. “The impact on lawyers and how they work is going to be hugely significant as AI continues to evolve.” Brodie Lewis, chief executive of Great Southern Community Legal Services, said the not-for-profit had been very carefully using generative AI for about two years. But only “for drafting, first pass” work that was then tailored and always checked by a lawyer for accuracy. “The potential is huge, the opportunity to bridge the divide between those who can afford legal assistance and those who can’t,” Mr Lewis said. “We support guidance of the legal sector on how to use it well. “We are a people profession, and human knowledge and experience can’t be replaced by a computer, nor should it be.” NSW has banned the use of AI to draft affidavits, witness statements, expert reports or other evidentiary materials, a stance WA’s Supreme Court describes as “prohibitive”. Mr Paxman said he hoped this State did not similarly “over-reach”. “AI is going to save clients money because jobs that would have previously taken me hours, take me seconds now,” he said. “It is faster than any human will ever be, and it’s getting more and more accurate and reliable.”