News & Updates from RAILS
šļø AI News & Research
Tennessee justĀ passed a lawĀ (cleverly named the ELVIS Act) attempting to stop people from using AI-generated versions of singersā voices by providing an individual property right to control the use of oneās voice and a private right of action to sue for an artificially-generated vocal impressions, regardless of a commercial link. This act is similar to proposed federal legislation such asĀ H.R.6943, the No AI FRAUD Act.Ā
In a paper that offersĀ an introduction to the evolution and impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 within the legal domain, Professor Harry Surden critically examines these toolsā āunprecedented abilities in understanding, analyzing, and creating draft legal documentsā and the demands for lawyers āto use these tools carefully and responsibly.ā Toward these ends, this essay aims āto provide an approachable explanation as to how they work.ā
āļø AI In Courts & Agencies
The Biden Administration released new guidelines for AI use in federal agencies. If an agency wants to use AI, it must now prove that the AI tools it is using do not endanger the public and are free from bias. Agencies must also publish a list of the AI tools they are using, a risk assessment for each tool, and details on how these risks are being managed. Each agency electing to use AI must also designate a Chief AI Officer who manages the risks posed by AI.
The Fifth Circuit released comments it received in response to its proposed amendment to Rule 32.3. The proposed amendment requires attorneys to verify that no generative AI was used in preparation of court documents, or if it was, that a human verified the document for accuracy. The reaction was mixed, with some attorneys saying the rule is unnecessary.
Two more attorneys have been sanctioned for citing to fake cases generated by artificial intelligence systems - one a pro se litigant, and the other a licensed attorney. The men claimed to not know that the cases were fake, and stated that they had no intent to mislead the courts. The pro se litigant was ordered to pay $10,000 in damages towards his opponentās legal fees, while the lawyer was ordered to pay a $2,000 fee to the courts.
šļø AI in Access to Legal Services
In Gray Advice, Keith Porcaro discusses the legal and ethical implications of using software as a replacement for human advice.
Forbes is cautioning immigration lawyers against submitting unchecked AI briefs due to recent backlash around fabricated case citations.
In How Generative AI Can Help Address the Access to Justice Gap Through the Courts, Colleen Chien et al. discuss the significant role generative AI can play in bridging the access to justice gap for low-income Americans. Focusing on the Arizona courts, this article demonstrates five key ways in which AI can assist: translation services, legal information curation, procedural guidance, and technical infrastructure enhancement.
š£ Professional Spotlight
Meet RAILS Researcher Madhavi Nambiar! Madhavi has been working this semester to create RAILSā AI Use in Courts Tracker. Madhavi previously worked in software consulting and in Trust & Safety operations at tech companies, which sparked her academic and professional interest in emerging technologies and AI.
Published in March 2024 and compiled by Madhavi, the AI Use In Courts Tracker allows for search and filtering capabilities for relevant orders, rules, and guidelines based on factors such as jurisdiction, date, and key terms.
āWhen we first began researching existing rules and guidelines for AI use in courts, I expected to find a handful of standing orders with similar structures. By scouring news articles and court websites, we found almost 50 documents with differing scopes, terminology, and requirements,ā said Madhavi. āI hope that this tool will help attorneys incorporate new AI tools into their practice and provide context to courts as they try to address their concerns with AI use.ā
š RAILS Projects
As mentioned above, we just launched our AI Use in Courts Tracker.
Weāre seeking volunteers to serve on a short-term Special Committee on Communications & Resources. Special Committee members will work virtually with RAILS staff to provide quick feedback on RAILS communications (newsletter, website, etc.), advice on the infrastructure and substance of RAILS resources, and big ideas to address the diverse needs of RAILS participants. Read the Committeeās Charge. Please email us at RAILS@law.duke.edu if this is of interest to you.
We are creating resources to help our network source and evaluate AI news. Stay tuned!
Have feedback for us on this newsletter? Weād love to hear from you.