•  
  •  
 

NSU Undergraduate Law Journal

Abstract

George Orwell’s 1984 tells the chilling story of an oppressive regime that uses information control and manipulation to further its political agenda. Within the realm of 1984, the Party, the head of the regime, weaponizes instruments, such as a telescreen, to subject citizens to ongoing surveillance with the promise that any suspicious activity will be punished. In furtherance of that agenda, the Party controls every existing narrative of the past, present, and future, using their authoritarian position to alter primary and secondary sources for their benefit. Lastly, by creating a new language to serve as a linguistic constraint, the Party dictates what words citizens can use, which are those that directly uplift the Party. These similar concepts can be seen in the integration of AI in many professions. Specifically in the legal field, AI poses direct Orwellian-like threats to the integrity of the legal profession and the security of client information. Authors posit that if AI is not improved, the centralized problems in 1984 will become even more prevalent today. The recent popularization of AI in the legal field is largely due to its efficiency, but that benefit should not nullify the prominent ethical concerns of using AI in the legal field. First, this article will examine the advantages of using AI in the legal field, directly followed by a discussion of the ABA Model Rules for Professional Conduct, which outline the principles legal professionals must follow, and how they have been interpreted to address AI issues. Rules pertaining to competency, confidentiality, supervision, and integrity are all subject to AI application and can be impacted by AI’s shortcomings surrounding surveillance, information control, and linguistic compressors. The implications include the compromising of sensitive client data; the fabrication of legal precedent, cases, and provisions that lead to sanctions and jeopardize the integrity of the justice system; and AI’s predictive nature acting as a language compressor when being applied to complex and nuanced fields like the law. These shortcomings are not to discourage developers and lawyers who use AI, but to advocate for the former to consider these issues and make necessary adjustments and for the latter to educate themselves in AI literacy and use it responsibly.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS