Powering My Law Practice: How Artificial Intelligence Revolutionized My Approach
Law, Legal Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Legal Efficiency, Task Optimization, Legal Strategy
In the world of law, each case is a unique challenge that requires meticulous attention and deep analysis. Recently, I found myself immersed in a legal appeal that demanded a comprehensive understanding of the counterparty’s argument. In the midst of the complexity of the situation, I decided to harness artificial intelligence as an ally to optimize my approach and maximize my efficiency.
The AI tool, known as ChatGPT, became my reliable assistant by breaking down and summarizing the counterparty’s written submission. Its ability to identify the central axis of the argument, as well as to point out flaws in the reasoning and logical contradictions, was a real asset.
Concrete use of Chat GPT
While working on another written submission, I received an alert about the deadline for responding to a transfer motion. As I needed to know what it was about, but didn’t have enough time, I wrote the following in Chat GPT:
“Give me a summary of this text, mark logical contradictions and flaws in the argumentation:”
In the same chat line, I copied and pasted what the counterparty had written.
The result was as follows (specific references to the case are removed for professional ethics reasons):
“Text summary:
The text presents an appeal against a sentence that rejected a request for unconstitutionality against the Law … which regulated the “Rate…”. The appellant argues that the resolution was erroneous in considering the claim untimely and that the rate in question is actually a tax that violates constitutional provisions. Doctrinal and jurisprudential arguments are mentioned that support the possibility of raising unconstitutionality in executive trials. The demand for a declaratory action of unconstitutionality is questioned and it is maintained that the claim was timely. The lack of recognition of grievances by the resolution is criticized.
Logical contradictions and flaws in the argumentation:
1. Contradiction in the statement of the claim object: The appellant first asserts that the claim is based on the unconstitutionality of Law … in its entirety, but then argues that the object of unconstitutionality is specifically the tax created by Article 1 of that law. This generates an inconsistency in the central focus of the claim.
2. Confusion between rate and tax: The text states that the “Rate…” is actually a tax, but does not offer a clear rationale for this assertion. In addition, the terminology used (rate and tax) is not properly defined or distinguished, weakening the argument.
3. Lack of coherence in the argumentation on untimeliness: The appellant questions the untimeliness of the unconstitutionality claim, but then argues that it was timely. This contradiction weakens the appellant’s position on the timeliness of the claim.
4. Lack of detail in the reference to doctrine and jurisprudence: Although doctrinal and jurisprudential sources are cited to support certain arguments, no deep analysis is provided of how these sources support the appellant’s position. This affects the strength of the arguments presented.
5. Lack of clarity in the grievances: The appellant criticizes the resolution for not recognizing the grievances, but does not sufficiently explain what those grievances are or how they relate to the issue of unconstitutionality raised.
6. Poorly developed argument about the right to defense: The appellant mentions that the rejection of the unconstitutionality claim undermines the right to defense, but does not offer a detailed analysis of how and why this occurs, weakening this line of argumentation.
Overall, the text presents certain contradictions, ambiguities, and lack of development in its arguments, which affect the coherence and solidity of the appellant’s position.”
How to use this information
The summary he made for me in seconds allowed me to remember (it’s an appeal) what was discussed in the first instance. On the other hand, when contradictions are pointed out, it gives me an idea of what kind of strategy to use when drafting my submission. In the same sense, the fact that so many contradictions are highlighted makes me think that the response will not be too complex. This saved me a lot of time and simplified my task.
However, it is important to note that I did not relegate my role as a lawyer to the machine; instead, I use technology as a strategic tool to support my decision making.
This encounter with AI also allowed me to accurately project the times, costs, and difficulties of the task ahead. This detailed analysis allowed me to delegate specific tasks to colleagues, optimizing the distribution of work and ensuring that each aspect of the case received adequate attention. While technology helped in planning, I never relinquished control of the drafting of my submission or the definition of my legal strategy; artificial intelligence is a strategic complement in my practice, not a replacement.
Collaboration with AI not only streamlined the process but also allowed me to focus on crucial aspects of the case. In addition, its ability to provide an objective and rapid view allowed me to make more informed decisions and increase my overall efficiency. This synergy between human and technological skills allowed me to face challenges more effectively and focus on what I do best: representing the interests of my clients.
Other functions
Just as I asked for an initial analysis of the counterparty’s submission, I did the same with the appealed sentence and my submission of grievances. Verifying flaws in the judge’s reasoning is a very good tool for defining the reasoning of a written submission. Similarly, objectively analyzing my work allows me to have greater confidence in the content of the submission.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the strategic use of artificial intelligence in legal practice not only provides competitive advantages but also reduces the costs and times involved in preparing and presenting cases. By harnessing these tools, we not only improve our productivity but also elevate the quality of our work and provide better service to our clients. Artificial intelligence is a powerful ally in the modern legal world and is destined to transform the way we approach and solve the legal challenges of the 21st century.”
