Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning
arXiv:2008.09507
Abstract
Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) that are being applied to legal efforts have raised controversial questions about the existent restrictions imposed on the practice-of-law. Generally, the legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL), though the boundaries are at times amorphous and some contend capricious and self-serving, rather than being devised holistically for the benefit of society all told. A missing ingredient in these arguments is the realization that impending legal profession disruptions due to AI can be more robustly discerned by examining the matter through the lens of a framework utilizing the autonomous levels of AI Legal Reasoning (AILR). This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels and offers key insights for the furtherance of these crucial practice-of-law debates.
22 pages, 5 figures. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2008.07743
Cited by in corpus (5)
- Legal Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining (LSAOM): Assimilating Advances in Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning
- Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) Amid the Advent of Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning
- The Next Era of American Law Amid the Advent of Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning
- AI and Legal Argumentation: Aligning the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning
- Antitrust and Artificial Intelligence (AAI): Antitrust Vigilance Lifecycle and AI Legal Reasoning Autonomy