More On AI
Poor use of AI has prompted the courts to threaten action.
We have discussed the use of AI in the tax context on two previous occasions:
how misuse can cause harm; and
potential benefits in completing a tax return.
But now the courts are sitting up and taking serious notice. In the High Court Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, recently said:
“There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused. In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities (such as heads of chambers and managing partners) and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services. Those measures must ensure that every individual currently providing legal services within this jurisdiction (whenever and wherever they were qualified to do so) understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence. For the future … the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled.”
And very recently First-tier Tribunal Judge Allatt noted in response to AI-produced nonsense in support of the applicant’s case that:
“… the tribunal will consider making references to any professional body in relation to any person who submits to the tribunal any item, the standards of which fall below the professional and ethical standards the tribunal has a right to expect”.
In other words, it will soon be time to start reporting misuse of AI to professional bodies.
Of course, using AI without review for court submissions is not only pointless but a waste of time: if the court or tribunal is doing its job properly – that is, forensically assessing the true worth of the submissions made to it – errors will inevitably be found and the force of those submissions will be lessened in consequence. In fact, an AI-assisted submission containing incorrect or hallucinated information is likely to be of no more use than a simple statement saying “please can we win?”, which would be quicker and cheaper than using AI in the first place.
Instead, as we have noted before, whilst it may be a good start to use AI to set the ball rolling, an experienced professional will always be needed to research the topic thoroughly, to fill in any gaps and correct any misapprehensions.
On the other hand, if rumours coming out of the educational world are anything to go by, no human intervention may in future be necessary after all. It is said that students will be allowed to use AI to produce coursework, which will then be marked by AI, thus obviating any need to teach anyone anything, ever again.
Perhaps this approach might be tried in tax litigation – after all, if jury trials are considered a waste of resources, maybe employing a tribunal judge in tax cases will also be deemed too expensive. Then we will be able to let the AI judge mark the work of the AI appellant. What could possibly go wrong?