Login
Is it possible for AI to win a court case?
In response to growing curiosity within the legal profession regarding AI advancements, a mock trial was conducted to determine whether AI could prevail in a courtroom setting against a seasoned lawyer.
Grace Robbie
Last week, Lander & Rogers conducted a live mock trial at SXSW Sydney to explore a critical question that has arisen among legal professionals as AI has progressed and become increasingly integrated into the legal field: Can AI successfully win a court case?
During the event, one of the firm’s attorneys, Jeanette Merjane, engaged in a mock trial against a randomly selected audience member who utilised the NexLaw tool, with assistance from Ken Leung, a lawyer from the firm, to present their case.
The proceedings were presided over by Professor David Lindsay from the University of Technology Sydney, who served as the judge.
Despite the AI platform’s advanced capabilities, Merjane emerged victorious in the trial, reassuring that the legal profession remains secure from the threat of a robot revolution – for the time being.
Merjane remarked that participating in the trial was an “eye-opening experience” that underscored her belief that, despite the ongoing evolution of AI in the legal profession, human intuition and experience remain essential components of our justice system.
“This mock trial was a unique opportunity to explore the evolving role of AI in the legal profession. Even though AI has come a long way, our SXSW Sydney mock trial showed that human intuition, experience, and adaptability are still key in the courtroom.
“It was eye-opening and fun to be a part of the experiment, proving that human intelligence still holds a vital place in our justice system,” Merjane said.
Leung echoed her sentiments, noting that the trial effectively showcased the potential of AI to assist the legal profession while highlighting the irreplaceable value of human judgement and expertise.
“The mock trial at SXSW Sydney was a fantastic experience. It highlighted the potential of AI in assisting legal processes but also underscored the irreplaceable value of human judgement and expertise.
“The event provided us with valuable insights into how AI can be integrated into legal practice to complement, rather than replace, human lawyers,” Leung said.
After declaring Merjane the victor over the AI system, Lindsay provided valuable insights into the trial’s dynamics.
He pointed out that although the AI system could formulate coherent arguments, it encountered technical challenges, including misinterpretations of legislation and an inadequate focus on the essential elements necessary to establish the offence.
“The self-defended party, using AI, did an impressive job of constructing coherent arguments that persuasively and accurately dealt with the evidence.
“That said, there were some technical issues with the case. In particular, the responses from the AI system did not focus as clearly on the elements needed to establish the offence. And the AI system incorrectly cited legislation,” Lindsay said.
“In addition, the outputs – while impressive – depended significantly on the expert prompts from trained lawyer Ken Leung. It is unlikely that an untrained person would achieve the same quality of outputs.
“Ultimately, the future lies in humans working alongside AI – with the best results achieved by people who are trained in the relevant disciplines and in skills such as prompt engineering.”
The audience’s reactions to the trial were mixed, with them “reacting with keen interest and scepticism” throughout the proceedings.
Jaz Zrieka, the volunteer who represented herself using the AI-powered NexLaw tool, shared her experience with the platform, highlighting the fascinating nature of witnessing AI in action. Nonetheless, she articulated that this experience reaffirmed her belief that human expertise remains irreplaceable in complex legal proceedings,
“It was fascinating to see AI in action, essentially helping me defend myself, but I don’t think I could have used the platform without Ken’s assistance. I could have prompted the AI, but I wouldn’t have known the right legal terms to use or structure to truly defend myself.
“Jeanette’s performance was excellent, and I think it reminded me and everyone in the room that we cannot replace humans in complex situations like legal proceedings anytime soon. It was fun to be a part of and definitely sparked a lot of conversations about the future of AI in law,” Zrieka said.
