Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has the potential to enhance attorneys’ work product and client outcomes. It also allows the public to obtain quick answers to their questions, access templates or even have documents or simple contracts drafted for them, all at little or no cost.
However, as the old adage goes, “You get what you pay for.” While, there may be instances where using AI may seem appropriate, another axiom — Murphy’s Law, “If anything can go wrong, it will” — cannot be ignored. The uncertainty of the marketplace, coupled with the chances of business relationships changing or unraveling, the value of well-drafted written agreement cannot be overstated.
Crafted by a seasoned attorney, such agreements clearly contemplate the parties’ intent and the complexities and conditions of a particular business transaction and industry. They anticipate relevant “what if” scenarios, maximize rights and remedies under the applicable laws, and set out a defined path to navigate and mitigate potential issues.
Simply put, all this is beyond AI’s abilities. Today’s agreements require adaptive human intelligence, coupled with training and experience unavailable from today’s AI solutions.
What’s more, an experienced and qualified attorney listens discerningly and asks thoughtful questions to synthesize the relevant information, the potential risks and liability, the industry-specific concerns or conditions, and the terms to maximize the benefits, rights and remedies under the law in their client’s favor.
Attorneys balance the factors and concepts most people would not know or think to consider typing their prompt into an AI search query.
Therein lies the issue. AI relies on end users to determine what may or may not be relevant or necessary from a legal standpoint to include in an agreement. Potential mistakes, omissions, or missteps substantially increase, and could end up costing a business substantially more money down the road to correct or litigate issues or disputes that could have and should have been addressed or mitigated in the agreement.
The use of ambiguous, insufficient or wrong terms, or the omission of necessary and beneficial terms, in a transactional agreement governing a business relationship or a particular transaction could be disastrous for the outcome of litigation or a trial, the survival of a person’s business, or their pocketbook.
Such litigation is costly, and the wheels of justice can turn slow. Once mired in a lawsuit, AI cannot try your case.
Clients rely heavily on their attorney’s judgment and ethical reasoning — qualities AI currently struggles to grasp, let alone replicate. At least for now, the best practice is to ensure that AI supports rather than replaces the nuanced decision-making that only a well-seasoned attorney can provide.
Manooch Thomas Azizi is an Associate with Tripp Scott who focuses his practice in the areas of general corporate transactions and services, Entrepreneurial business, Financing, Commercial real estate and transactions, transactions (such as acquisitions, sales, leases, financing, sales under threat of government condemnation), Condominium and HOA homeowners associations.
Paul May is an Associate with Tripp Scott who focuses his practice in the areas of general commercial litigation, employment law and construction law.
For more than 50 years, Tripp Scott has played a leadership role in issues that impact business.
Learn more at TrippScott.com.