AI beats average legal mind but not best-performing lawyers


Gulovsen: lawyers will become more specialised

The latest ‘man versus machine’ contest, which pitted human lawyers against artificial intelligence (AI) technology, has shown the machine to be superior in both accuracy and speed.

But the best-performing lawyers exceeded even the AI.

A group of 20 US lawyers was asked to review five real-world non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for accuracy, the results measured against model answers completed by senior academic lawyers.

Simultaneously, AI contract review software assessed the NDAs for the first time.

Overall, the AI, created by LawGeex, achieved an average 94% accuracy rate, whereas the “highly-experienced, US trained” human lawyers achieved just 85% accuracy on average.

Unsurprisingly, the software was also vastly quicker. While the human took an average of 92 minutes to complete a review of the five NDAs, the AI took just 26 seconds.

The lawyers were also very variable in their accuracy. One lawyer identified just 55% of relevant issues with one NDA and another 58%. In one NDA, the AI spotted 100% of issues, while the best lawyers found 97%.

However, the two best-performing lawyers each achieved 95% accuracy across the five NDAs.

But law professor Gillian Hadfield of the University of Southern California, part of the team of academics which selected legal issues expected to appear in a standard NDA, pointed out that the lawyers had examined the NDAs in conditions far removed from the usual pressures of practice.

She said: “I think it’s important to recognise that this experiment actually understates the gain from AI.

“The lawyers who reviewed these documents were fully focused on the task: it didn’t sink to the bottom of a to-do list, it didn’t get rushed through while waiting for a plane or with one eye on the clock to get out the door to a meeting or to pick up kids.

“The margin of efficiency may be even greater than the results presented here.”

Asked whether there was any role for lawyers to review contracts in future, Grant Gulovsen, an Illinois intellectual property attorney who competed against the AI, told Legal Futures he expected it would diminish.

He explained: “I think lawyers will continue to play a role in contract review, but that role will decrease over time and become far more specialised, with advances in AI, machine learning and the adoption of things like smart contracts on the… blockchain.”

It has not been all plain sailing for the adoption of technology in the review of legal documents. Last week our sister site Litigation Futures reported a case where a judge ordered a manual search of 55,000 documents because of concerns over the claimants’ approach to computer-assisted review .

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

16 November 2018

Transparency is about a lot more than just price

The transparency agenda is much more than the figures you put on your website; it all comes back to communication, the root of so many lawyers’ problems if you look at the types of complaint that go to the Legal Ombudsman.

Read More