We have a large garden which requires a lot of maintenance. I have always believed in using the best electric tools available to help with these tasks. For example, a couple of weeks ago I trimmed the front hedge with a cordless rechargeable battery powered strimmer which is a huge improvement on the corded variety. I had accidently cut and then repaired the electric cable countless times on its corded predecessor. AI powered tools can also use image recognition to mow your lawn, monitor plant health or control automated watering systems. See this RHS article How will AI change gardening? And yet there are times like clearing wet leaves and the seeds of strawberry trees (there are such things!) from your driveway when none of these gadgets or processes work and it is back to serious manual labour with a broom and a large garden dustpan and brush. As a quote in the article by a professional designer says, “Humans have a unique connection to nature that cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence, and I do not believe that gardeners or garden designers are at immediate risk”.
It is the same I suggest for all professionals as we adjust to and utilise this new technology like other advances beforehand. There are times when AI is incredibly useful, and others when it is no substitute for the sweat of the brow endeavours of human intellect. Take a scenario where an in-house legal counsel seeks advice from a specialist in an external law firm on competition law and its application to a joint venture being formed amongst several suppliers to bid for a government contract. I posed the question to ChatGPT and it advised quite correctly that there are significant competition law risks around possible bid collusion, information exchange, market power, merger control and post bid behaviour proposing mitigation activities. This is helpful in getting some initial sense of the potential challenges. What it did not do is first ask some of the obvious question any competition lawyer versed in this sort of activity would have done. What is the size of the deal and what services are involved? Do any of the parties have a significant or even dominant market position in the provision of these services? Critically is this a contractual joint venture such as a prime bidding with agreed subcontractors? Or are the parties intending to form a separate corporate vehicle to submit the bid in which they are all shareholders? The latter can be far more complex and demanding and the vehicle itself would have an independent existence and, for example, may require its own legal and financial advice. Drawing out this sort of fundamental understanding of the potential risks and issues right at the outset is what an experienced competition lawyer can bring to the party.
Take another example drawn from a contract negotiation. Suppose you are acting for a supplier in the negotiation of an outsourcing contract working long hours in the meeting suite of the customers lawyers. One of the last few sticking points, as is often the case, is the amount and extent of the limit and exclusion of liability clause. After a heated exchange the customer takes the rather drastic step of halting the negotiations and throwing your team out of the lawyers’ offices. You gather in a nearby coffee house to plan your next move. It is very difficult to do this effectively without a “feel” for the people and position of the other side which can only come from experience, involvement and knowing your counterparts. AI can’t do this, but actually it can help and maybe remove some of the inevitable emotion. ChatGPT did come up with some quite sensible options; Pause – Don’t Escalate, Senior to Senior Outreach, Reassess Position, Separate Relationship from Issues, Use Mediation Techniques, Document Your Position, Prepare Alternatives. This actually happened to me a few years ago in London and (without any help from AI) we decided this was not terminal and that we would have to just wait it out until we were invited back in. We also felt (rather than reasoned) that the emotion and anger of the buyer meant paradoxically we were probably close to a solution, which indeed proved to be the case.
Surely in the preparation of cases for litigation AI coupled with document management software removes the need for careful legal scrutiny? It is true that technology can streamline evidence gathering churning through and analysing vast amounts of data and highlighting relevant material. However, it needs to be “pointed” in the right direction in the first place by a litigator. Then in my experience the results need further review by a professional to determine its precise relevance. I participated in such an exercise and found that whilst the software had indeed produced lots of material which was potentially relevant, I and other colleagues had to sift through this to identify evidence our litigation colleagues could then focus on and utilise.
Lawyers and other professionals often participate in internal corporate governance processes. This is when, for example, senior management in an IT supplier review a potential bid for outsourcing services scrutinising the proposed solution, programme, price, legal terms and associated risks. Each relevant area of expertise within the business will put together and present a summary of its specific topic. Technical architects describe the service to be provided, project managers explain the plan for delivery, the finance team produces detailed spreadsheets showing how much profit the business will make, lawyers and commercial managers provide a contractual analysis describing the proposed agreement and drawing out any particularly significant risks (such as the limit of liability discussed above). Now AI could certainly help in the preparation and in theory even be presented with all of this material and perhaps make a determination as to whether this was good business and the company should proceed or not. However, again in my view there is no substitute for the ability demonstrated by senior managers (who will have seen many such proposals) to get to the truth, cutting through the details, and sometimes deliberate attempts to pull the wool over their eyes by an overzealous and committed bid team. I once watched the chief executive of a major IT company I was advising get so exasperated with the lack of precision or thought being presented to him by a programme manager that he stood up and literally banged his head on the wall in frustration! Not to be recommended, but his dedication to searching out the truth was highly commendable and the correct application of his role. The programme manager did not last long. It is very hard to see AI having this level of management insight and intuition and metaphorically banging its digital head on a virtual wall.
Rather I have concluded that as with my garden automation, robotics and AI are very useful and even provide a partnering skill set, but will not supplant the skill, knowledge and sometimes back breaking efforts of professionals like the lawyer and the gardener.
"Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important." Bill Gates.
It is the same I suggest for all professionals as we adjust to and utilise this new technology like other advances beforehand. There are times when AI is incredibly useful, and others when it is no substitute for the sweat of the brow endeavours of human intellect. Take a scenario where an in-house legal counsel seeks advice from a specialist in an external law firm on competition law and its application to a joint venture being formed amongst several suppliers to bid for a government contract. I posed the question to ChatGPT and it advised quite correctly that there are significant competition law risks around possible bid collusion, information exchange, market power, merger control and post bid behaviour proposing mitigation activities. This is helpful in getting some initial sense of the potential challenges. What it did not do is first ask some of the obvious question any competition lawyer versed in this sort of activity would have done. What is the size of the deal and what services are involved? Do any of the parties have a significant or even dominant market position in the provision of these services? Critically is this a contractual joint venture such as a prime bidding with agreed subcontractors? Or are the parties intending to form a separate corporate vehicle to submit the bid in which they are all shareholders? The latter can be far more complex and demanding and the vehicle itself would have an independent existence and, for example, may require its own legal and financial advice. Drawing out this sort of fundamental understanding of the potential risks and issues right at the outset is what an experienced competition lawyer can bring to the party.
Take another example drawn from a contract negotiation. Suppose you are acting for a supplier in the negotiation of an outsourcing contract working long hours in the meeting suite of the customers lawyers. One of the last few sticking points, as is often the case, is the amount and extent of the limit and exclusion of liability clause. After a heated exchange the customer takes the rather drastic step of halting the negotiations and throwing your team out of the lawyers’ offices. You gather in a nearby coffee house to plan your next move. It is very difficult to do this effectively without a “feel” for the people and position of the other side which can only come from experience, involvement and knowing your counterparts. AI can’t do this, but actually it can help and maybe remove some of the inevitable emotion. ChatGPT did come up with some quite sensible options; Pause – Don’t Escalate, Senior to Senior Outreach, Reassess Position, Separate Relationship from Issues, Use Mediation Techniques, Document Your Position, Prepare Alternatives. This actually happened to me a few years ago in London and (without any help from AI) we decided this was not terminal and that we would have to just wait it out until we were invited back in. We also felt (rather than reasoned) that the emotion and anger of the buyer meant paradoxically we were probably close to a solution, which indeed proved to be the case.
Surely in the preparation of cases for litigation AI coupled with document management software removes the need for careful legal scrutiny? It is true that technology can streamline evidence gathering churning through and analysing vast amounts of data and highlighting relevant material. However, it needs to be “pointed” in the right direction in the first place by a litigator. Then in my experience the results need further review by a professional to determine its precise relevance. I participated in such an exercise and found that whilst the software had indeed produced lots of material which was potentially relevant, I and other colleagues had to sift through this to identify evidence our litigation colleagues could then focus on and utilise.
Lawyers and other professionals often participate in internal corporate governance processes. This is when, for example, senior management in an IT supplier review a potential bid for outsourcing services scrutinising the proposed solution, programme, price, legal terms and associated risks. Each relevant area of expertise within the business will put together and present a summary of its specific topic. Technical architects describe the service to be provided, project managers explain the plan for delivery, the finance team produces detailed spreadsheets showing how much profit the business will make, lawyers and commercial managers provide a contractual analysis describing the proposed agreement and drawing out any particularly significant risks (such as the limit of liability discussed above). Now AI could certainly help in the preparation and in theory even be presented with all of this material and perhaps make a determination as to whether this was good business and the company should proceed or not. However, again in my view there is no substitute for the ability demonstrated by senior managers (who will have seen many such proposals) to get to the truth, cutting through the details, and sometimes deliberate attempts to pull the wool over their eyes by an overzealous and committed bid team. I once watched the chief executive of a major IT company I was advising get so exasperated with the lack of precision or thought being presented to him by a programme manager that he stood up and literally banged his head on the wall in frustration! Not to be recommended, but his dedication to searching out the truth was highly commendable and the correct application of his role. The programme manager did not last long. It is very hard to see AI having this level of management insight and intuition and metaphorically banging its digital head on a virtual wall.
Rather I have concluded that as with my garden automation, robotics and AI are very useful and even provide a partnering skill set, but will not supplant the skill, knowledge and sometimes back breaking efforts of professionals like the lawyer and the gardener.
"Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important." Bill Gates.
RSS Feed
