Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Advokatens Rådgivaransvar vid Användandet av Artificiell Intelligens i Samband med Due Diligence

Zerroug Strömstedt, Zackaria LU (2021) JURM02 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Lawyers have long been looking for ways to streamline their work and best serve the client's interest. Artificial intelligence has emerged as the most praiseworthy technique for achieving great efficiencies in the lawyer's duties. A document-reviewing AI tool with greater precision in legal problem solving than most lawyers is now available to some lawyers. These tools are very quick to categorize legal issues and are therefore used where the amount of documents is large. One such area is due diligence, hereinafter referred to as DD, in private company acquisitions. There, these AI tools are used to examine large amounts of documents where the tools categorize potential risks with the company that is about to be acquired. It is conceivable... (More)
Lawyers have long been looking for ways to streamline their work and best serve the client's interest. Artificial intelligence has emerged as the most praiseworthy technique for achieving great efficiencies in the lawyer's duties. A document-reviewing AI tool with greater precision in legal problem solving than most lawyers is now available to some lawyers. These tools are very quick to categorize legal issues and are therefore used where the amount of documents is large. One such area is due diligence, hereinafter referred to as DD, in private company acquisitions. There, these AI tools are used to examine large amounts of documents where the tools categorize potential risks with the company that is about to be acquired. It is conceivable that lawyers using these systems make mistakes in their advice that lead to the client losing money. In these situations, it is possible for the so called adviser's responsibility to enter into force. The lawyer can then reasonably not defend himself by pointing out the shortcomings in the work tool he has used, but is possibly responsible for the result of the work he has done. The assessment in these situations will ultimately be whether or not the lawyer's choice of working method can be said to be negligent. The lawyer's care in using AI must be assessed in these cases, including the entry of initial data for the AI tool, whether the lawyer has maintained the pedagogical duty to explain the system use to a sufficient extent for the client and to what extent the system has actually been used. The lawyer's responsibility is mainly based on which method he has used and whether this can be said to be acceptable or not. The lawyer can not generally be said to be responsible for achieving a certain result. The fact that the use of AI is not an ordinary working method in a lawyer's work must not, after all, mean that the use itself is negligent. An assessment must instead be made between each individual case as to whether the use was negligent or not. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Advokater har länge letat efter sätt att effektivisera sitt arbete och på bästa sätt tillvarata klientens intresse. Artificiell intelligens har vuxit fram som den allra mest lovordade tekniken för att åstadkomma stora effektiviseringar av advokatens arbetsuppgifter. Ett dokumentgranskande AI-verktyg med större precision i juridisk problemlösning än de flesta advokater står nu till vissa advokaters förfogande. Dessa verktyg är mycket snabba på att kategorisera juridiska problem och används därför med fördel där dokumentmängden är stor. Ett sådant område är due diligence, hädanefter också förkortat DD, vid privata företagsförvärv. Där används dessa AI-verktyg för att granska stora mängder dokument där verktygen kategoriserar potentiella... (More)
Advokater har länge letat efter sätt att effektivisera sitt arbete och på bästa sätt tillvarata klientens intresse. Artificiell intelligens har vuxit fram som den allra mest lovordade tekniken för att åstadkomma stora effektiviseringar av advokatens arbetsuppgifter. Ett dokumentgranskande AI-verktyg med större precision i juridisk problemlösning än de flesta advokater står nu till vissa advokaters förfogande. Dessa verktyg är mycket snabba på att kategorisera juridiska problem och används därför med fördel där dokumentmängden är stor. Ett sådant område är due diligence, hädanefter också förkortat DD, vid privata företagsförvärv. Där används dessa AI-verktyg för att granska stora mängder dokument där verktygen kategoriserar potentiella risker med bolaget som står i begrepp att förvärvas. Det är tänkbart att advokater med hjälp av dessa system gör misstag i sin rådgivning som leder till att klienten lider viss skada. Det är i dessa situationer möjligt att rådgivaransvaret för advokaten aktualiseras. Advokaten kan rimligen då inte försvara sig genom att påpeka bristerna i det arbetsverktyg denne använt utan svarar sannolikt själv för resultatet av uppdraget denne utfört. Bedömningen i dessa situationer kommer ytterst handla om advokatens val av arbetsmetod och hjälpmedel kan sägas vara oaktsam. Advokatens omsorg vid användningen av AI måste i dessa fall bedömas, detta gäller bland annat inmatandet av initiala data för AI-verktyget, huruvida advokaten upprätthållit en pedagogisk plikt att förklara systemanvändningen i tillräcklig utsträckning för klienten samt i vilken utsträckning systemet faktiskt används. Advokatens ansvar bygger främst på vilken metod denne använt och om denna kan sägas vara godtagbar. Advokaten kan inte generellt sägas bära ansvar för att ett visst resultat uppnås. Det faktum att användningen av AI inte är en vedertagen arbetsmetod i advokatens arbete måste trots allt inte innebära att användningen i sig är oaktsam. En bedömning måste göras mellan varje enskilt fall om användningen varit oaktsam eller ej. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Zerroug Strömstedt, Zackaria LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Responsibility for Lawyers Using Artificial Intelligence in Due Diligence
course
JURM02 20211
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt, Artificiell intelligens, Artificial Intelligence, Rådgivaransvar, Professionsansvar
language
Swedish
id
9046145
date added to LUP
2021-06-10 13:41:56
date last changed
2021-06-10 13:41:56
@misc{9046145,
  abstract     = {{Lawyers have long been looking for ways to streamline their work and best serve the client's interest. Artificial intelligence has emerged as the most praiseworthy technique for achieving great efficiencies in the lawyer's duties. A document-reviewing AI tool with greater precision in legal problem solving than most lawyers is now available to some lawyers. These tools are very quick to categorize legal issues and are therefore used where the amount of documents is large. One such area is due diligence, hereinafter referred to as DD, in private company acquisitions. There, these AI tools are used to examine large amounts of documents where the tools categorize potential risks with the company that is about to be acquired. It is conceivable that lawyers using these systems make mistakes in their advice that lead to the client losing money. In these situations, it is possible for the so called adviser's responsibility to enter into force. The lawyer can then reasonably not defend himself by pointing out the shortcomings in the work tool he has used, but is possibly responsible for the result of the work he has done. The assessment in these situations will ultimately be whether or not the lawyer's choice of working method can be said to be negligent. The lawyer's care in using AI must be assessed in these cases, including the entry of initial data for the AI tool, whether the lawyer has maintained the pedagogical duty to explain the system use to a sufficient extent for the client and to what extent the system has actually been used. The lawyer's responsibility is mainly based on which method he has used and whether this can be said to be acceptable or not. The lawyer can not generally be said to be responsible for achieving a certain result. The fact that the use of AI is not an ordinary working method in a lawyer's work must not, after all, mean that the use itself is negligent. An assessment must instead be made between each individual case as to whether the use was negligent or not.}},
  author       = {{Zerroug Strömstedt, Zackaria}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Advokatens Rådgivaransvar vid Användandet av Artificiell Intelligens i Samband med Due Diligence}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}