Last
week,
Microsoft
announced
an
AI
Diagnostic
Orchestrator
tool
for
the
diagnosis
of
complex
cases
that
often
require
several
specialists
to
resolve.
Certainly,
there
are
plenty
of
differences
between
legal
and
medical
problems.
But
both
systems
have
become
bloated,
expensive,
and
hard
to
access
regardless
of
economic
status.
Tools
like
Microsoft’s
new
offering
could
help
bridge
that
gap
as
well
as
improve
the
quality
of
legal
services.
The
Microsoft
Tool
Microsoft
says
its
tool
nailed
diagnoses
in
85%
of
NEJM
cases.
Human
doctors?
Approximately
21%.
That’s
nearly
four
times
worse
than
the
Diagnostic
Orchestrator.
And
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
That
matters
since,
according
to
an
article
in
ZD
Net
about
the
Microsoft
announcement,
there
are
over
50
million
health
care
GenAI
searches
every
single
day.
(I
confess,
I’ve
made
inquiries
of
ChatGPT
from
time
to
time.)
By
weeding
out
cases
for
which
health
care
is
not
needed,
the
tools
can
save
a
lot
of
time,
energy,
and
money
all
the
way
around.
(The
ZD
Net
article
was
authored
by
Radhika
Rajkumar.)
But
it’s
not
just
what
the
Orchestrator
does
that’s
interesting.
Since
complex
medical
cases
can’t
be
solved
by
memorization,
Microsoft
created
a
process
called
a
Sequential
Diagnostic
Benchmark.
Sequential
diagnosis
is
the
process
by
which
doctors
first
evaluate
the
symptoms
of
a
patient
and
then
proceed
with
tests
and
further
questions.
By
pairing
the
Benchmark
with
LLMs,
Microsoft
says
the
LLM
becomes
a
virtual
panel
of
physicians
with
diverse
diagnostic
approaches
to
collaborate
to
solve
the
case.
The
tool
also
suggests
tests
that
may
be
needed
to
assist
it
in
making
an
accurate
diagnosis
and
it
provides
a
risk
benefit
and
cost
analysis
for
each
test
that
it
contemplates.
This
feature
would
come
in
pretty
handy
given
the
high
cost
of
medical
care
(although
I
shudder
what
application
of
this
tool
by
insurance
carriers
could
auger).
Application
to
Legal?
So,
you
say
that’s
all
well
and
good
for
medical
diagnoses
that
are
based
on
science,
but
it
couldn’t
be
done
for
legal,
right?
Legal
problems
require
experience
and
wisdom
to
be
analyzed
correctly,
right?
Maybe.
On
the
front
end
though,
think
about
the
cost
savings
and
peace
of
mind
a
legal
tool
like
Microsoft’s
Diagnostic
Orchestrator
could
deliver
for
everyday
legal
questions,
questions
that
already
are
being
routinely
answered
by
tools
like
ChatGPT.
A
tool
like
the
AI
Diagnostic
Orchestrator
would
also
enable
more
sophisticated
problems
to
be
analyzed
and
sorted
through
by
the
client
and
lawyer
who
could
then
make
more
informed
decisions.
It
could
help
determine
when
a
lawyer
would
be
needed,
what
speciality
would
be
required,
and
even
who
best
to
hire.
And
creating
a
tool
that
can
not
only
pass
the
bar
exam
by
memorizing
facts
but
could
reason
through
more
complex
legal
problems
and
apply
a
sequential-diagnosis-like
analysis
might
do
to
better
inform
the
public
and
even
in-house
counsel
of
likely
outcomes
and
advice
just
as
if
there
was
a
virtual
panel
of
lawyers
with
diverse
approaches.
Such
a
tool
could
be
used
to
sort
through
the
various
strategic
options
and
provide
a
breakdown
of
the
risks
and
benefits.
And
finally,
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
a
tool
that
could
recommended
what
steps
might
be
needed
to
solve
a
legal
problem
along
with
a
cost/benefit
analysis
could
likewise
inform
everyone
of
what
strategy
they
would
like
to
employ
in
an
informed
manner.
A
tool
that
could
assess
the
costs
of
taking
a
particular
deposition
and
the
risks
versus
benefit
of
that
depo
could
be
pretty
valuable.
Or
one
that
makes
a
similar
assessment
of
the
advisability
of
filing
certain
motions.
Certainly,
a
lawyer
and
the
client
still
need
to
be
the
final
decision
maker.
But
shouldn’t
the
lawyer
be
expected
to
say
to
the
client
here’s
the
cost,
here’s
the
benefit,
and
here’s
the
risk,
particularly
if
backed
by
sound
data
analytics
and
analysis.
No
question
that
this
is
a
different
approach
and
it’s
sometimes
risky
to
think
of
borrowing
an
approach
used
in
one
profession
for
use
in
another.
But
legal
could
look
to
the
medical
profession
to
deal
with
many
of
our
problems,
particularly
access
to
justice
and
its
cost.
The
Medical
Approach
v.
Legal
When
you
have
a
medical
problem
today,
you
typically
don’t
see
a
physician,
at
least
at
first.
You
see
a
nurse
practitioner
or
physician’s
assistant
who
makes
the
initial
assessment
to
aid
the
doctor.
Often
this
assessment
will
rule
out
the
need
for
a
doctor
at
all.
And
these
days,
doctors
don’t
take
vitals
or
run
basic
tests.
Trained
specialists
handle
that,
efficiently
and
at
lower
cost.
(We
don’t
call
them
“non-doctors,”
by
the
way.)
Why
Not
Legal
So,
the
notion
of
AI
tools
to
assist
with
some
part
of
the
work
needed
to
resolve
a
legal
problem
certainly
has
some
valuable
applications
to
legal.
And
tools
like
those
developed
by
Microsoft
are
just
an
additional
component
of
the
disaggregation
of
work
similar
to
what
the
medical
field
has
done.
Our
medical
systems
and
our
legal
systems
need
tools
to
reduce
cost
and
democratize
the
services
that
are
needed.
Is
legal
ready
for
an
AI
Diagnostic
Orchestrator?
Maybe
not.
But
don’t
be
surprised
if
Microsoft
builds
one
anyway.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.