The recent exposure of artificial intelligence and document automation has raised significant questions about the future role of lawyers in the coming decades. Some predictions go as far as suggesting that lawyers may become increasingly unnecessary and eventually extinct. This forecast stems from an aspiration to minimize errors and biases in the administration of justice.
Who hasn't complained about erratic judicial decisions, biases affecting the credibility of a key witness, or undue interference in the administration of justice? For users of the Judicial Branch—meaning every citizen needing to defend their rights against abuse or arbitrariness—it is an ideal that adjudicating a case involves a task as straightforward as entering variables into a predefined formula. Trials would be more transparent, precise, agile, and, in the best-case scenario, understandable for those directly involved in the dispute to be resolved.
To understand how trials will be in the future, we must start with the understanding that lawyers are generally intermediaries in people's transactions. They advise those entering into business relationships, document agreements, assist in administrative procedures, or help resolve disputes. Consequently, the future of judicial process management will depend on the future of market transactions and exchanges. In this context, there is a noticeable trend towards the digitization and dematerialization of transactions.
Beyond the simple exchange of tangible goods like food or raw materials, commercial operations have become more sophisticated beyond the buying and selling framework. Consider, for example, the intangible services involved in the value chain of sporting goods, such as marketing, design, advertising, and logistics. A multitude of providers are connected to the producer, making the consumer want to acquire those goods, ultimately reaching their hands. This complexity demonstrates how intricate and interconnected legal relationships become, as well as the challenges faced by those involved in dispute resolution.
Consequently, it seems that the most evident and superficial transformation is that lawyers will need to increasingly understand the non-legal reality in which they operate. Engaging in dispute resolution will often require adopting a multidisciplinary approach. This challenge is not exclusive to litigants but extends to all individuals involved in litigation management, including judges, judicial collaborators, performance secretaries, experts, or prosecutors. This change is not so surprising. Just observe the application of special criteria and techniques in Family Law that tend to ensure the well-being of children involved in divorce proceedings.
On the other hand, artificial intelligence, document automation, and databases will make the monotonous tasks of processing case information and drafting a lawsuit increasingly straightforward. At least for now, there is no close horizon in which these tools will replace humans. This is because the underlying technology in these tools is excellent at facilitating the mechanical work involved in litigation management, which currently is significant, as it allows deciding on the applicable law and understanding the criteria commonly adopted by courts regarding that law.
An example is the Kleros platform, which has been used to decide on non-payment issues to a bank by several debtors or to define what the insurer is responsible for paying. However, this verification component is the least of the problems in a trial. Information on the correct interpretation of the law is becoming increasingly accessible and systematized, making it relatively easy to determine which law applies and what outcome should be obtained regarding certain facts. What will become increasingly complex is proving them.
One of the most common myths in the profession of conflict resolution is that legal cases involve extensive philosophical discussions about the true meaning of the law. However, much of the work is focused on establishing (and convincing) what actually happened in the case. This is precisely the work that, for the moment, computers cannot do. In conclusion, identifying the rule applicable to legal cases will become somewhat simpler, but delivering quality justice will require professionals with a broader range of non-legal knowledge and communication skills that facilitate understanding the facts to which the law will be applied.