In recent years, the advent of artificial intelligence in various sectors has been a popular subject of discussion, and the legal profession has also been involved. As AI technologies advance and become more zonal, both the opportunities and hurdles for legal professionals and organizations in the future are presented. The scope of this analysis encompasses the insights provided by two distinct but complementary sources: a document from Harvard Law School and an article from the National Law Review. These sources get through the impact of AI on the area of law. They touch on some fundamentals of its role in the profession nowadays, as well as trends, rules, and regulations essential for practitioners and company owners. The two sources convey different methods of illustrating that AI would definitely change the nature of legal practice. However, though the article by Harvard Law School gives a general show of how AI influences professional careers in legal, diversity, on a global scale and education, the National Law Review goes into detail on issues such as excess of dependence, regulation and assessing AI tools. Using rhetorical techniques like identifying real-life cases, illustrating the legal environment and illustrating practical guidance, these sources strive to inform and facilitate legal practitioners’ AI integration. Via scrutiny of the arguments being made, we get to know the chances and the risks of AI in law initiatives and how the various stakeholders can respond to these chances and risks.
Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession is closely connected to the overall evolution of AI technologies. Early applications of AI in law emerged in the late twentieth century, with growing attention on activities such as document analysis, legal research and case prediction. Such an early generation of systems utilizes rule-based algorithms and expert systems to automate routine legal tasks and try to improve efficiency and accuracy (Neal). In recent years, the developments of machine learning, natural language processing, and data analytics have changed the field of artificial intelligence and law. More advanced modern AI systems that use deep learning algorithms and are trained on vast amounts of legal data go beyond the possibilities. These systems can now do complex tasks like contract analysis, legal drafting, predictive analytics, and even virtual assistants for legal research.
Artificial intelligence integration can bring about many opportunities for legal experts and organizations. Among the main benefits is enhanced efficiency because AI systems can automate multiple tasks, which enables lawyers to pay more attention to strategic and high-value activities. However, unlike this, AI in law also has inherent risks and challenges associated with its implementation. Ethics issues such as the accountability and transparency of AI systems pose a serious problem when used in highly legal issues where human control is significantly required. Along with this, there are phobias among lawyers due to the automation of the routine tasks of legal professionals with the help of AI (Todd &Clark). Additionally, the fact that AI systems have a chance to transmit or even further the biases already present in legal datasets poses the risk of unfairness and injustice in legal proceedings.
Analysis of Source 1 (Viewpoint advocating for AI in law): “Harvard law expert explains how AI may transform the legal profession in 2024.”
- Thesis: The author’s primary position on AI is that it can evolve the legal profession by boosting efficiency, enhancing access to legal services and regulating specific difficulties of legal professionals.
- Rhetorical Situation: The interview was conducted by Professor David Wilkins, a director at the Center of Legal Profession at Harvard Law School. The purpose is twofold: to provide readers with an overview of the transformative impact of AI in the legal profession and to stimulate critical thinking on the opportunities and risks of AI uptake (Neal).
- Rhetorical Tools: The author res, orts to Seussical devices to present his meaning in the passage. Language is instrumental in making AI an essential element in the legal realm, which is envisaged as a core issue to be debated by legal practitioners. The examples used in this discussion, for instance, ChatGPT being used to develop legal cases, is both an advantage and a drawback to AI technology.
- Evidence and Sources: The credibility of the evidence presented in the article is validated by referring to significant incidences, such as AI-powered legal cases, which boost the authenticity of the discussion. Moreover, the wisdom from the famous commentator of law education and practice, Professor David Wilkins, only adds to the claims of legal AI. Throughout the article, various citations have been made to trend reports and data from relevant sources, including the NALP Report on Gender Diversity and Associate Ranks in Law Firms, which helps to make the evidence and information more realistic.
Analysis of Source 2 (Viewpoint cautioning against AI in law)
- Thesis: The writer primarily discusses concerns and pitfalls associated with integrating AI technology, highlighting imminent problems connected with the General Counsel’s usage of these tools. The piece avail that GCs stay aware of the various risks linked to excessive reliance, such as misinterpretation of AI results, lack of transparency, biases in AI models, and the possible legal and ethical hurdles that may arise as a result of using AI in decision-making processes without caution (Todd & Clark).
- Rhetorical Situation: The circumstances of the article are separate from those of the former source as it focuses on general counsels (GCs) and legal professionals. A known endeavour here is to educate GCs on using AI in legal services administration, paying attention to the risks and problems they may face by 2024. Legal professionals can represent the key target group, the first of whom are GCs (who occupy the top leadership positions in companies) and the second group loyal to legal operations and technologies.
- Rhetorical Appeals: The writers rely on an appeal to reason and an ethical appeal to persuade the audience of the risks posed by AI in law. The logos are visible in that logical arguments touch on reasons for relying on AI too much, as well as examples and detailed analyses of these consequences. The credibility of the authors, “M.A. Todd and B.R. Clark”, and the publication channel “The National Law Review” bring about authority to the arguments presented in the article. Pathos needs to be stronger in the article since the emphasis is different. Instead of stirring the reader’s feelings, it aims to disclose and analyze the facts.
- Design Features: The design layout employed in the article will reinforce its effectiveness by making the content more readable and understandable to the target audience. Clear headings and subheadings can be used as a navigation tool in which GCs will decide on the content quickly and the central idea about AI. Moreover, incorporating photos or charts would increase information visualization about AI’s potential threats and challenges.
Comparative Analysis
The authors of both texts resort to some rhetorical devices to frame their views on AI and law, but their techniques are different. The starting author from Harvard Law School uses an optimistic tone, accentuating the evolutionary nature of AI within the legal environment and describing what may come rather than mentioning challenges the AI technology may face in the legal profession. They deploy the concept of logos by providing examples and data to drive and convince the readers of the validity of their argument. They get ethos by including observations by a respected legal expert. In contrast, the second author, who is writing for The National Law Review, could be more optimistic and instead extend his criticism of the dangers and problems facing AI adoption. They address what is intrinsic to logos by putting forth rock-solid arguments about what is wrong with relying heavily on AI, wherein one can analyze data and illustrate this with examples. To prove the ethos, the second author uses a publication platform of high credibility.
These contradictory opinions give the viewer different views on AI in a divergent manner, characterized by other points of view regarding AI in law. The first author presents a vision of the possibilities of adopting AI and exploring its advantages (Todd & Clark). On the other hand, the second author introduces problematic dimensions which should be addressed when considering risks and strategies for dealing with those that may occur. These differing perspectives raise several issues about AI in law and compel all the participants in the debate to be aware of both the promises and the problems associated with it. In turn, they help people involved in this discussion achieve a deeper understanding of this question.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis highlights two divergent ideologies about AI in the legal domain, one stressing its transformative capability and the other warning about excess reliance. Realizing and identifying the rhetorical approaches in this debate is critical for legal specialists and stakeholders about the complicated business of the adoption of AI. Recognizing both the advantages and the dangers these approaches bring, people can safely build up educated viewpoints and strategies for AI usage in the legal world. Additionally, research might scrutinize the long-term consequences of the implementation of AI in legal ethics, equity, and access to justice, along with the methods for coping with AI risks and biases connected with AI algorithms during legal decision-making.
Works Cited
Neal J. “Harvard law expert explains how AI may transform the legal profession in 2024.” Harvard Law School, 14 Feb. 2024, hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expert-explains-how-ai-may-transform-the-legal-profession-in-2024/.
Todd, M. A., and B. R. Clark. “AI for GCs: What you need to know for 2024.” Legal News & Business Law News | The National Law Review, 24 Jan. 2024, www.natlawreview.com/article/ai-gcs-what-you-need-know-2024.
write