AI in the Employment Law Universe

As Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has become a go-to for seemingly developed answers to general and specific queries, individuals having little interaction with the legal process may turn to the various AI software offerings to get much needed information at no cost.

Recently, new ads appeared in the New York City transit system explaining that people can turn to the advertised AI software application for legal answers to their workplace questions.  The advertisement appeared to give useful legal information that the user could rely on in helping them with a workplace issue, as well as offer a repository of where their documentation (notes of the workplace issues) could be stored.        

Broadly speaking, the recipient of legal services and software services are unique from each other. It’s a different market with different approaches. For example, legal practitioners are held to ethical standards and are subject to discipline for failing to meet those standards, with respect to the provision of legal services. The provider of software services is not held to similar ethical standards.

With respect to the AI software application that is being advertised in New York City, it presents several issues. What happens with the information stored? Is it subject to discovery? In other words, can an attorney representing the employer demand that all the information be produced for purposes of litigation without the limitations that a representative attorney could effectuate? An employee’s notes are almost always demanded by the opposing party that could be part of the evidentiary record. How well is it secured? Attorneys are directly responsible for the mishandling of client information. Is it a form of solicitation that requires express language that it is attorney advertising? If the service is not provided by an attorney, the entity is not responsible for understanding the rules nor being subject to the same discipline. Of course, one cannot present to the public that legal services are being offered if that person or entity is not licensed.

For any individual facing a workplace issue, the legal process can be very difficult to understand. That is an issue that, in a business school framework, could theoretically be resolved with the offering of a specific service. However, as discussed above, the market for users of legal services and software services are unique from each other, and the gap – access to legal information and advice – may not be solved within a business school theoretical framework.

Should you find yourself in a situation where you have legal questions about a workplace issue, AI responses, even if tailored to answer legal questions, and the company offering the technology, will not suffer the risk of giving bad advice as much as the person relying on the bad advice. Answers from experienced legal practitioners would be much more reliable. Many plaintiff-side employment attorneys will provide information through a no-cost consultation that will be a much more reliable method of getting useful information.