AI and the Judiciary: Will Judges Become Obsolete?

By: Raul R. Cortez

Before we dive into the meat of this discussion, let me give you a brief background of myself. I have been practicing law for three decades now, the bulk of which has been spent working with and in the tech industry. Needless to say, I am a big supporter of the adoption of new technologies. However, my training as a lawyer also requires me to approach all situations with caution and always with an inquisitive frame of mind.

About a decade ago, there was a rumour that artificial intelligence (AI) would eventually take over the role of lawyers, which would consequently lead to lawyers becoming obsolete. This type of rumor is not unique to members of the bar and is also applicable to different professions. Instead of letting these supposed threats scare us, let us use them to further scrutinize the technology and develop ways that we can use new technologies like AI to further improve our industries. The reality is that although the use of AI has increased in the practice of law, especially with generative AI (gen AI) such as ChatGPT and others, the need for lawyers is still increasing, albeit focused on more specialized expertise. So, will we ever see AI replacing lawyers/judges? This is the question that we will try to address in this article.

In the Philippines, there have been many news articles on pronouncements by no less than the Supreme Court (SC) on its adoption of AI in the courts. In fact, on October 2022, the SC launched the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), which aims to utilize the power of AI technology to enhance the judicial system by making it more efficient, accessible, and transparent.[1] Some of the proposed uses include AI-enabled voice-to-text transcription applications, AI deadline tracking, digital platforms and electronic courts, and even assisting in drafting decisions. In line with the SPJI, the SC  announced late last year that it is drafting an “AI Governance Framework for the Judiciary,”[2] which aims to outline guidelines for responsible integration of AI across various areas of court operations and management. More recently, the SC partnered with the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) Philippines to “create an electronic verification and case and evidence management system, digitize court records, and train court personnel to implement these advancements.” [3]

A quick internet search (especially assisted by AI) will reveal that there have been numerous articles written on the pros and cons of AI in the legal practice. In fact, there is an article written by Cinara Rocha and João Alvaro Carvalho, both from the University of Minho, entitled “Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary: Uses and Threats.”[4] The said article identifies threats like bias, opacity, overreliance on technology, personal data protection, and even the digital divide. These are definitely concerns that need to be raised and would affect the extent of the use of AI. However, these are concerns that focus more on the technology itself. For this article, I will focus on the surrounding factors that affect the application of the technology, particularly in the Philippines, and dispel the misconception that AI is a magic wand that, once applied, will solve all problems.

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW

As in most jurisdictions, the practice of law (and other professions) is based on regulations. In the Philippines, no less than the Philippine Constitution has set the requirements for the said practice.

Article 12, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.”[5]

This is a fundamental requirement for the practice of law in the Philippines. Since AI can never be a “Filipino citizen,” then there can never be an instance when it can replace lawyers and judges, even though there may be instances when AI can perform better than an individual.

TECHNOLOGICAL RESTRICTIONS

Even assuming that there is no restriction on the practice of law, there are technical restrictions that will hinder AI from being a viable replacement for someone who is qualified to practice law.

It is a basic principle that the ability of AI to function is reliant on the data that it can access. In a developing country such as the Philippines, where a significant amount of data is still in analog form, the lack of data that AI can access would impair its ability to come up with more accurate analysis, and thus puts in question the reliability of the results derived from the use of AI.

Aside from the amount of data available, there is also the need to have trustworthy data. This is even more crucial in the legal practice where critical issues are involved and sometimes even lives are at stake. This is especially true when the proliferation of fake documents is extensive, and the use of deepfakes is involved. AI needs to be able to distinguish between fact-based information and fake information. The solution lies in building a comprehensive and trustworthy database utilizing robust cybersecurity measures that ensure the data accessed is free from inaccuracies or outright fakes.

CONCLUSION

Although AI will never replace lawyers or judges, its use will continue to expand and will help improve the function of the judiciary and the practice of law in general, provided that the amount of data made available continues to grow and that such data is trustworthy. As gen AI and machine learning improve, the reliability of AI in assisting with addressing legal issues will continue to increase. This will lead to lawyers and judges becoming better and more efficient.

[1] How AI is being incorporated in the Philippine Court systems – Philstar Tech

[2] SC to Establish AI Governance Framework for the Judiciary

[3] Supreme Court, Korean International Agency Partner to Modernize Philippine Courts

[4] Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary: Uses and Threats

[5] 1987 Philippine Constitution