Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series, Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches, by
our
friends
at Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.
The
law
has
always
been
a
deeply
human
affair:
attorneys
arguing,
judges
deliberating,
juries
weighing
credibility,
precedent,
and
plain
old
common
sense.
But
now,
something
new
has
entered
the
courtroom
—
and
it
doesn’t
bill
by
the
hour
or
even
need
a
coffee
break.
Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
has
arrived,
and
it’s
quietly
moving
closer
to
the
bench.
AI
is
no
longer
just
lurking
in
the
background.
Judges,
clerks,
and
law
firms
are
using
it
to
draft,
summarize,
and
“streamline.”
Some
courts
are
even
testing
it
to
predict
outcomes
or
suggest
sentencing.
The
question
isn’t
whether
AI
will
become
part
of
the
justice
system
—
it’s
how
far
we’ll
let
it
go
before
someone
objects
on
constitutional
grounds.
Humans
vs.
Algorithms
Many
in
the
legal
field
are
excited
about
the
efficiency
AI
offers.
Others
are
quietly
appalled.
One
senior
judge
recently
said
there
are
“some
things
AI
can’t
do,
and
which
it
is
desirable
it
doesn’t
do.”
That’s
judicial
code
for:
let’s
not
have
a
robot
judge
handing
down
sentences
just
yet.
Still,
AI’s
scope
continues
to
expand.
Law
students
are
now
learning
to
use
it
as
part
of
their
curriculum.
Clerks
are
using
it
to
organize
case
files.
And
let’s
be
honest
—
more
than
a
few
partners
are
using
it
to
draft
legal
documents
they’ll
later
falsely
claim
they
“reviewed
extensively.”
The
line
between
legal
aid
and
legal
authority
is
blurring
rapidly.
When
AI
begins
helping
determine
who
wins
and
loses,
we’re
not
just
talking
about
convenience
—
we’re
talking
about
the
very
definition
of
justice.
What’s
Really
at
Stake
At
risk
are
the
pillars
that
support
the
entire
system:
fairness,
accountability,
and
transparency.
Human
judgment
—
flawed
though
it
may
be
—
at
least
provides
reasons,
ethics,
and
sometimes
mercy.
Machines
don’t
understand
nuance.
They
process
data.
Imagine
explaining
to
a
client
that
an
algorithm
decided
their
fate
based
on
pattern
similarity.
That
may
sound
efficient,
but
it’s
a
long
way
from
the
“independent
and
impartial
tribunal”
that
due
process
promises.
Some
courts
have
already
banned
AI
use
in
affidavits
and
witness
statements
after
experiencing
too
many
AI
hallucinations.
It
turns
out,
citing
fake
cases
doesn’t
sit
well
with
judges
—
human
or
otherwise.
The
bigger
concern
isn’t
that
AI
will
turn
evil;
it’s
that
it
will
become
just
another
normal
tool.
As
we
start
to
accept
machines
reasoning
for
us,
the
problem
quietly
grows.
No
evil
robot
overlord
needed
—
just
a
generation
of
lawyers
who
stop
questioning,
“Is
this
argument
actually
sound?”
What
Lawyers
Should
Do
1.
Audit
your
own
workflows
If
you
or
your
associates
use
AI
tools
for
drafting,
research,
or
analysis,
ensure
you
understand
what
they
are
doing.
You
can’t
delegate
professional
judgment
to
an
algorithm
and
still
consider
yourself
a
professional.
2.
Document
and
verify
everything
Keep
a
record
of
what
the
AI
generated,
how
you
verified
it,
and
who
reviewed
it.
When
something
goes
wrong
(and
it
will),
“the
bot
did
it”
is
not
an
acceptable
excuse.
3.
Review
your
contracts
and
policies
If
you’re
advising
clients,
update
your
engagement
letters
and
vendor
agreements
to
include
AI
use.
Someone
must
be
responsible
for
the
risk
if
a
model
hallucinates
a
citation
—
ideally,
not
your
client.
4.
Preserve
the
human
parts
of
law
Machines
can
process
data,
but
they
can’t
replicate
judgment,
empathy,
or
persuasion.
A
closing
argument
still
needs
a
heartbeat,
not
a
heatmap.
The
day
AI
can
move
a
jury
to
tears
is
the
day
we
should
all
pack
it
in.
Leverage
Without
Losing
Control
AI
won’t
replace
lawyers,
but
it’s
already
taking
over
some
of
their
tasks.
The
risk
isn’t
losing
our
jobs
—
it’s
losing
our
judgment.
Treat
AI
like
a
talented
but
unreliable
intern.
Let
it
draft,
summarize,
and
organize
information,
but
never,
ever
let
it
speak
for
you.
When
the
robotic
gavel
finally
drops
and
someone
asks,
“Who
made
this
decision
—
you
or
the
algorithm?”
you’d
better
be
ready
to
answer
“you”
confidently,
not
with
confusion.
After
all,
the
future
of
law
may
be
digital,
but
accountability
still
must
be
human.
Michael
C.
Maschke
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.
Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics,
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Sharon
D.
Nelson
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.
She
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
John
W.
Simek
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
holds
multiple
technical
certifications
and
is
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].