Opportunities for Tech Startups in the Legal Industry

The legal industry is experiencing a digital transformation, and for tech startup enthusiasts, a world of untapped opportunities is waiting to be discovered. Let’s explore how computational law introduces countless possibilities, especially in processing legal information, innovating legal tasks, and predicting legal outcomes.

Legal information processing revolves around tasks like summarizing court cases, translating legal documents, redacting sensitive information, performing electronic discovery (e-discovery), and retrieving legal information. These processes have seen considerable automation over the years. For instance, automated legal summarization tools emerged over a decade ago, revolutionizing how legal documents are handled.

Generative AI

Generative AI has significantly impacted legal information processing by enhancing efficiency and reducing the manual workload. Evaluating the performance of generative AI in these tasks is relatively straightforward due to clear objectives and high observability. Despite the advances, many legal experts see the transition not as a revolution but as a gradual evolution.

The hype around generative AI suggests it will revolutionize the legal field. However, many seasoned professionals in the legal sector feel these tools offer incremental improvements rather than transformative changes. Legal summarization tools and other information processing technologies have been around for a while. Moreover, the inherent subjectivity in many legal information processing tasks means that even experts can have different opinions on the “correct” approach.

A significant challenge in deploying AI in the legal field is the issue of hallucinations — instances where AI produces incorrect or misleading information. This can be especially problematic in legal settings. A striking incident occurred when lawyers used AI-generated content riddled with inaccuracies in their briefs, leading to serious professional consequences.

The increasing reliance on the internet for legal advice poses additional challenges. A survey revealed that 31% of people in the U.S. had used the internet for legal advice, and 63% relied entirely on the information they found. However, AI tools sometimes produce errors, which can have high-stakes consequences. For example, faulty translations in refugee asylum applications can result in unjust rejections.

Creativity, Reasoning, and Judgment in Legal Tasks

Certain legal tasks require a degree of creativity, such as drafting documents or mediating disputes. AI has shown promise in these areas, with OpenAI’s GPT-4, for example, claiming that it could pass the bar exam in the top percentile

Trusting AI evaluations can be problematic due to potential data contamination. Overly optimistic performance estimates can arise when AI is trained on datasets that inadvertently include evaluation data. An illustration of this is when AI solutions excel on well-known problems but falter on new ones, indicating a reliance on memorization rather than genuine problem-solving.

Predicting Legal Outcomes

The prospect of using AI to predict legal outcomes is enticing, but it encounters significant obstacles. These include the need for specific context and the interpretation of individual judges. A comprehensive review of 171 papers revealed that only a small fraction truly predicted court outcomes, while the others merely assessed verdicts already included in judgment texts.

Recommendations for Aspiring Legal Tech Entrepreneurs

Involving legal experts in AI evaluations is crucial to ensure these models are genuinely applicable to real-world legal tasks. The LegalBench project exemplifies a multidisciplinary effort to benchmark AI within the legal sphere.

It is vital to comprehend real-world usage patterns of AI tools in legal contexts. Collecting and analyzing real-world interactions, like the dataset of user conversations with AI created by Zheng, enhances the construct validity of AI evaluations.

Predictive AI tools often struggle with accuracy and may introduce biases. For instance, ProPublica’s investigation into the COMPAS system highlighted significant racial bias in recidivism predictions . Ensuring transparency and implementing stringent evaluation standards are essential measures to mitigate such issues.

Tech startups can gain a strategic edge by focusing on evaluations and understanding the socio-technical implications of AI in law. While the future of AI in the legal field is promising, a balanced approach is necessary to maximize efficiency and uphold ethical considerations. The next big opportunities in legal tech lie in the overlooked complications of AI evaluation — an area ripe for innovation and discovery. Harnessing this power requires not only technical expertise but also a deep understanding of the legal landscape.

This story was a derived work of the paper, Promises and pitfalls of artificialintelligence for legal applications.

Follow me for more stories on pragmatic applications and opportunties in Generative AI. Please feel to connect with me on LinkedIn.