Should We Require CLE or Certifications Prior to Implementing AI in Practice?

 

 

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, appears to be the talking point in all sectors because it stands to transform the way we work through automation, efficiency, and idea creation. From contract analysis to legal research, AI promises to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and access to justice. That is not to say, however, there are not risks that come with the use of this tool, and those risks become greater without proper education on how and when to use AI. With these advancements come unique challenges and ethical considerations. This post discusses the critical need for attorneys to possess the requisite skills and knowledge to use AI competently, in line with the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.1, and explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandating Continuing Legal Education (CLE) or certification for attorneys venturing to use AI in their practice.

 

The Imperative of Competence

At the heart of the legal profession lies the foundational principle of competence. Rule 4-1.1 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client, encompassing the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. In maintaining this competency, attorneys must be educated in the tools they utilize in practice – including AI.

Proponents for AI might argue that attorneys have needed to evolve with changing technologies for centuries, but AI introduces a unique set of challenges that most will not be prepared to work through. The hazards of using AI without adequate understanding are manifold. Misinterpretation of AI-generated advice, overreliance on automated processes without critical oversight, and potential breaches of confidentiality due to insufficient data security measures are just a few of the pitfalls that can compromise client interests and the integrity of the legal process. In the worst-case scenario, such lapses could lead to legal malpractice, undermining public trust in the legal system.

This does not mean I do not support the use of AI in practice. The opposite is true, in fact. The issue hinges on the proper education of this tool for attorneys to take advantage of its benefits while having the understanding of the tools limitations and the need for human oversight.

 

Pros of Mandating CLE or Certification

Ensuring Ethical Use of AI

Mandatory CLE or certification for attorneys using AI could serve as a quality control mechanism, ensuring that legal practitioners understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies. It is necessary to understand how a tool works to ensure proper safeguards are put in place to protect client confidentiality and privacy.

 

Encouraging Continuous Learning

The legal landscape and its technological tools are ever-evolving. CLE requirements already exist and encourage attorneys to stay abreast of the latest developments in law and technology. Requiring one of these courses to be centered on the use of AI can aid in the continued success of the attorney and their practice.

 

Cons of Mandating CLE or Certification

Access and Inequality

Mandatory training could exacerbate existing inequalities within the legal profession. Smaller firms and solo practitioners might find the costs and time commitments associated with such requirements burdensome, potentially widening the gap between large, resource-rich firms and their smaller counterparts.

 

Innovation Stifling

Over-regulation could stifle innovation within the legal sector. Excessive focus on certification and standardization might discourage creative uses of AI, limiting the technology's potential to transform and improve legal practice.

 

Conclusion

The integration of AI into legal practice is not a question of if but when. As this transition accelerates, ensuring that attorneys are equipped with the necessary skills and ethical understanding to use AI effectively and responsibly becomes paramount. While the idea of mandating CLE or certification has its merits, including promoting competency and ethical use, it also presents challenges such as potential access issues and innovation stifling. The legal community must engage in a forward-thinking discussion to strike the right balance between harnessing the benefits of AI and upholding the core values of the profession. Ultimately, we should encourage the use of advancing technology, but remain cautious of potential implications.

 

**ChatGPT was used to aid in the creation of this blog post.