Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09507v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 18:35:58 GMT
• Title: Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning
• Authors: Lance Eliot
• Abstract summary: The legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL) This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) that are being applied to legal efforts have raised controversial questions about the existent restrictions imposed on the practice-of-law. Generally, the legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL), though the boundaries are at times amorphous and some contend capricious and self-serving, rather than being devised holistically for the benefit of society all told. A missing ingredient in these arguments is the realization that impending legal profession disruptions due to AI can be more robustly discerned by examining the matter through the lens of a framework utilizing the autonomous levels of AI Legal Reasoning (AILR). This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels and offers key insights for the furtherance of these crucial practice-of-law debates.

Related papers

• The Ethics of Automating Legal Actors [58.81546227716182]
  We argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T13:48:46Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Legal Judgment Prediction [60.70089334782383]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications. Recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal tasks. We design practical baseline solutions based on LLMs and test on the task of legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T07:38:04Z)
• LAiW: A Chinese Legal Large Language Models Benchmark [17.66376880475554]
  General and legal domain LLMs have demonstrated strong performance in various tasks of LegalAI. We are the first to build the Chinese legal LLMs benchmark LAiW, based on the logic of legal practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:19:55Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documents [56.40163943394202]
  We release the Longformer-based pre-trained language model, named as Lawformer, for Chinese legal long documents understanding. We evaluate Lawformer on a variety of LegalAI tasks, including judgment prediction, similar case retrieval, legal reading comprehension, and legal question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-09T09:39:25Z)
• Legal Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining (LSAOM): Assimilating Advances in Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining (LSAOM) consists of two often intertwined phenomena and actions underlying legal discussions and narratives. Efforts to undertake LSAOM have historically been performed by human hand and cognition. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) involving especially Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) are bolstering how automation can systematically perform either or both of Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-02T04:15:21Z)
• AI and Legal Argumentation: Aligning the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of justice, underpinning an adversarial form of law. Extensive research has attempted to augment or undertake legal argumentation via the use of computer-based automation including Artificial Intelligence (AI) An innovative meta-approach is proposed to apply the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) of AI Legal Reasoning to the maturation of AI and Legal Argumentation (AILA)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T22:05:40Z)
• Turing Test and the Practice of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  This paper proposes a variant of the Turing Test that is customized for specific use in the AILR realm. It shows how this famous gold standard of AI fulfillment can be robustly applied across the autonomous levels of AI Legal Reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-18T04:50:23Z)
• An Ontological AI-and-Law Framework for the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  A framework is proposed that seeks to identify and establish a set of robust autonomous levels articulating the realm of Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. A set of seven levels of autonomy for AI and Legal Reasoning are meticulously proffered and mindfully discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-04T16:12:30Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.