IAKL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION AI USE

IAKL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

AI USE IN KOREA How is AI used in Korea? Legal Research Legal Drafting Contract Automation Searching for a Lawyer

AI USE IN KOREA In 2017, the Ministry of Justice has launched “Bubbi, ” an AI chatbot service for public legal research. “Bubbi” provides services in real estate lease, labor issues and inheritance. (http: //talk. lawnorder. go. kr/web/index. do )

OBSTACLES TO AI USE IN KOREA Attorney-at-Law Act imposes some (indirect) restrictions on the development of AI in law in Korea Any person who is not qualified to practice as an attorney in Korea (“nonattorney”) is prohibited from practicing law, including advising or representing clients in lawsuits in exchange of any economic profits (Art 109(1)). Attorneys are not allowed to operate their business in partnership with non -attorneys (Art 34).

AI USE IN U. S. LITIGATION How is AI already being used in litigation-related legal work in the United States? Legal Research E-Discovery Legal Drafting / Document Assembly Risk Analysis Expert Witness Tools Predictive Analysis of Judicial Decisions Legal Analytics

AI USE IN U. S. LITIGATION United States Department of Justice plans increased use of AI: “DOJ will deploy machine learning and other AI tools with built-in intelligent and automated processes that maximize human efficiency and rely on computer-assisted processes at critical decision points” “The proliferation of information along with new types and sources of data means DOJ must invest in emerging AI technologies such as cognitive and neuro analytics and machine learning to support mission activities. ” ~ Department of Justice Information Technology Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2019 -2021

AI USE IN CANADA How is AI used in Canada? E-Discovery Legal Research Legal Analytics Predict Outcomes Chatbots

ENGLISH LAW PERSPECTIVE 1/2 CPR Practice Direction 31 B – Disclosure of Electronic Documents Lord Justice Jackson’s review of Litigation Costs Source: qccartoon. com

ENGLISH LAW PERSPECTIVE 2/2 Te. CSA/SCL/TECBAR e. Disclosure Protocol Option for parties to use computer aided or automated review Developed for users of the Technology and Construction Court Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) First English court case to approve the use of predictive coding “ 10 Factors” Followed by Brown v BCA Trading and others [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) HMCTS court reform Envisions use of artificial intelligence in decision making

TYPES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Source: Plexus. co

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LAW Natural Language Processing (NLP): IT processing of human language Machine Learning: Algorithm of automatic learning (supervised or not by a human) aiming to create links among different data (correlations, categorisation) Source: Machinelearning-blog. com

DRIVERS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INTO LEGAL PRACTICE Source: lawsociety. org. uk

LEGALTECH PRODUCTS - OVERVIEW Legaltech companies attracted US$ 1 billion investment in 2018 and growing Legaltech products claim to enhance consistency, accuracy and efficiency Legaltech products relevant to dispute resolution e. Discovery Legal Research Prediction Technology Source: lawgeex. com

E-DISCOVERY Electronic aspect of identifying, collecting and producing electronically stored information De-duplicating Eliminate duplicates to reduce dataset Predictive coding Extrapolate a lawyer’s decision on a sample set Adoption and use Reduce of time and cost to review documents Law firms hiring specialists to support e-Discovery Clients approaching e-Discovery vendors directly Source: blogs. opentext. com

LEGAL RESEARCH Automated research Review databases to get to relevant results faster Identify facts and issues Analyse strengths and weaknesses of a brief Automatically generate legal memos Adoption and use Focus on limited practice areas to all areas of law Gap between adoption and internal utilization Size and quality of legal database Source: azatty. wordpress. com

PREDICTION TECHNOLOGY A subset of legal analytics to predict future outcomes based on past data Optimise and predict outcome of a litigation strategy Choice of forum, motion and counsel Analysis of judges and jurors Adoption and use AI vs Experienced Litigators Scrutiny of result Size and quality of legal database Source: ucl. ac. uk

THE IMPACT OF AI

THE IMPACT OF AI 1 in 2 jobs in Korea will be replaced by robots or artificial intelligence 10 years from now (Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training) 22% of a lawyer’s job and 35% of a paralegal’s job can be automated (Mc. Kinsey and Company) 20 - 25 % of legal departments already use AI in at least one area (Lexis. Nexis) 600 technical innovations aimed at law in 2015 alone (Law Society of England Wales) the legal industry spent $8 billion on AI technology in 2016; predicted to spend $46 billion within the next year (IDC)

THE IMPACT OF AI will change: The way legal work is done The way lawyers deal with clients The way law firms conduct business

OUR WORK AI not about replacing lawyers but replacing some of the jobs performed by lawyers More mundane work performed by AI Fewer lawyers performing traditional roles Time savings and efficiency achieved through AI allow lawyers to focus more time and effort on higher-level work, in-depth analysis and strategic problem solving

OUR WORK Lawyers will need to be trained and be knowledgeable in AI programs, algorithms, and ways of leveraging technology Lawyers will need to stay on top of emerging technologies Lawyers will expect to manage a team of not only lawyers but non-lawyers with expertise in new technologies Lawyers will need to change the way we train young lawyers

OUR CLIENTS Clients recognize that the AI revolution has arrived and are using AI tools Clients are using AI tools to: review legal bills, provide insights on legal spend, facilitate fixed-fee pricing arrangements with their external counsel watch the bottom line

OUR CLIENTS Clients expect their law firms to use AI tools that enhance delivery of legal services Clients want better and more relevant technologies to be used and shared on integrated platforms (Deloitte) Enhance efficiency and enhanced relationship overall

OUR BUSINESS

OUR BUSINESS Traditionally, law firms bill by the hour AI means more efficient processes and less billable hours for certain tasks Increased adoption of AI will likely mean law firms are going to review their traditional billing model Rather than selling time, more emphasis on selling results, fixed fee, taskbased billing and other alternative fee arrangements

OUR BUSINESS Clients will select law firms that can meet demand for technology-enhanced services and provide more cost-effective legal services Enhanced effectiveness to win cases leads to more clients and more revenue Businesses that commit to and invest in AI could see an estimated 38% revenue boost (Accenture)

OUR BUSINESS Law firms too slow to adopt AI and automation will be at competitive disadvantage AI leads to increased competition among law firms, particularly from small to mid-sized law firms Law firms that integrate new technologies remain competitive by providing high quality yet cost effective services Example: LTL and Legal. Mation

CONCLUSION

FUTURE – QUO VADIS, AI?

DEVELOPMENT OF AI 1950 s Computers were first invented.

DEVELOPMENT OF AI 2011 IBM Watson beats humans in the quiz show Jeopardy.

DEVELOPMENT OF AI 2015 Ross starts answering specific legal questions.

DEVELOPMENT OF AI 2016 Alpha. Go seals 4 -1 victory over Lee Sedol.

WHAT NEXT?

DEVELOPMENT OF AI technology can increase business productivity by up to 40 percent (Accenture) The number of AI startups since 2000 has magnified to 14 times (Forbes) AI will automate 16% of American jobs (Forrester) 15 percent of enterprises are using AI, and 31 percent of them say that it is their agenda for the next 12 months (Adobe)

NATURE OF LEGAL WORK • IRAC • • Issue Rule Application Conclusion • Oral advocacy • Interactions with clients

NATURE OF LEGAL WORK Policy Level Subjective Objective Semantic Level (context, meaning, interpretation) Syntactic Level (characters, symbols, words) Knowledge / Information Data

WEAK AI VS STRONG AI ‘Weak AI’ or ‘Shallow AI’ Refers to “attempts to mimic human intelligence in outcomes, buy not in its underlying processes. ” It is intelligent, but it has defined functions. ‘Strong AI’ or ‘Deep AI’ Defined as the ability “to reason, represent knowledge, plan, learn, communicate in natural language and integrate all these skills toward a common goal. ” Strong AI would match or exceed human intelligence. It attempts to perform the full range of human cognitive abilities.

PRESENT – WEAK AI Document review (discovery / due diligence) Legal research Contract analysis Prediction technology Legal analytics Document automation Electronic billing

FUTURE – STRONG AI

WAYS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - KOREA Korea has taken concrete action in order to favor the development or robot technologies by enacting Intelligent Robots Development and Distribution Promotion Act (지능형 로봇 개발 및 보급 촉진법) in 2008. The purpose of the Act is to contribute to the enhancement of the quality of life of citizens and the national economy by establishing and promoting a policy for the sustainable development of the intelligent robot industry to facilitate the development and distribution of intelligent robots and lay down the foundation therefor.

WAYS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS – US On February 11, 2019, US President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order launching the American AI Initiative. The American AI Initiative is guided by five principles: Investing in AI Research and Development Setting AI Governance Standards Building the AI Workforce Protecting American values including civil liberties and privacy and fostering public trust and confidence in AI technologies ⑤ Protecting US technological advantage in AI, while promoting an international environment that supports innovation ① ② ③ ④

WAYS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - OECD On May 22, 2019, OECD member States adopted OECD Principles on AI. While OECD Recommendations are not legally binding, they are highly influential. They have set the international standard in a wide range of areas and helped governments design national legislation. On June 9, 2019, the G 20 adopted human-centered AI Principles that draw from the OECD AI Principles.

WAYS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - OECD Principles on AI (complementary values-based principles): ① AI should benefit people and the planet by driving inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being. ② AI systems should be designed in a way that respects the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and diversity, and they should include appropriate safeguards – for example, enabling human intervention where necessary – to ensure a fair and just society. ③ There should be transparency and responsible disclosure around AI systems to ensure that people understand AI-based outcomes and can challenge them. ④ AI systems must function in a robust, secure and safe way throughout their life cycles and potential risks should be continually assessed and managed. ⑤ Organizations and individuals developing, deploying or operating AI systems should be held accountable for their proper functioning in line with the above principles.

WAYS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - OECD Consistent with these value-based principles, the OECD also provides five recommendations to governments: ① Facilitate public and private investment in research & development to spur innovation in trustworthy AI. ② Foster accessible AI ecosystems with digital infrastructure and technologies and mechanisms to share data and knowledge. ③ Ensure a policy environment that will open the way to deployment of trustworthy AI systems. ④ Empower people with the skills for AI and support workers for a fair transition. ⑤ Co-operate across borders and sectors to progress on responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI.

BRIGHT FUTURE!

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI “I am an optimist and I believe that we can create AI for the good of the world. That it can work in harmony with us. We simply need to be aware of the dangers, identify them, employ the best possible practice and management, and prepare for its consequences well in advance. ” ~ Dr. Stephen Hawking, 2017

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI (1) “BE AWARE” of and “IDENTIFY” Ethical Pitfalls Where do ethical risks with Legal AI arise? Risks from using Legal AI vs. Risks from not using Legal AI

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI “Nothing has changed, everything has changed. ” (Anon. ) Ethical Duties Implicated by Legal AI 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Duty of Competence Duty of Diligence Duty to Exercise Independent Judgment Duty to Supervise Duty of Confidentiality Duty to Maintain Privileges Duty to Avoid Bias Duty to Avoid Unauthorized Practice of Law

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI New Official Comment to Rule 1. 1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility: Maintaining Competence To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. (Comment 8 to Model Rule 1. 1) Adopted in 36 States so far. California has not directly adopted the Comment, but has separately recognized that the Duty of Competence includes competence in relevant litigation technology. (See State Bar of California Formal Opinion No. 2015 -193. )

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI (2) “EMPLOY THE BEST POSSIBLE PRACTICE AND MANAGEMENT” Continuing Education is Key. Exercise Care When Selecting and Using AI Tools Understand enough about how the technology works to weigh the benefits and risks of the AI analytical tool. Is it possible that use of the tool will have unintended consequences, such as disclosure of privileged information to third parties? Maintain client confidences and privileges at all times. Will confidential client data be commingled with other parties’ data or used to inform the AI vendor’s tools for use with its other clients?

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI (2) “EMPLOY THE BEST POSSIBLE PRACTICE AND MANAGEMENT” Exercise Care When Selecting and Using AI Tools (cont’d) Ensure adequate data security. Evaluate the risk and impact of a data breach. Understand the type of data that informs the AI tool. “Garbage in, garbage out. ” Know when human judgment is necessary. Lawyers have a duty of independent judgment that cannot be wholly delegated to a computerized system.

ETHICS AND LEGAL AI (3) “PREPARE” for the Consequences of AI Use As AI use grows, confidential client information will be increasingly at risk through machine learning, legal analytics, and other AI tools. Risk management policies should consider technological issues. It’s not o. k. just to delegate technological issues. Appropriate Supervision of subordinates and vendors is critical. Set up systems within your practice to ensure that clients are protected and ethical obligations are met at the highest standards of compliance.

THANK YOU

CONTACTS

BIOS Kunhee Cho is a dual-qualified Korean lawyer and English solicitor who focuses on complex cross-border litigation, insolvency matters and international judgment enforcement, as well as related cross-border asset tracing and recovery. His practice covers a wide range of industries, including construction, real estate and energy. Prior to joining Kobre & Kim, Mr. Cho practiced at Kim & Chang, where he worked on international arbitration and cross-border litigation involving contracts, mergers and acquisitions, construction, insurance and maritime disputes, as well as internal investigation and insolvency matters.

BIOS Kyongwha Chung is a Partner in International Arbitration & Litigation Practice Group of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC. Ms. Chung has acted as counsel in a number of significant international arbitrations (both commercial and investment) under various arbitration rules, including ICC, ICSID, UNCITRAL, KCAB, SIAC and HKIAC. In particular, Ms. Chung is representing the Republic of Korea in its first treaty-based multi-billion dollar arbitration initiated by Lone Star Funds. Ms. Chung also has substantial experience in Korean civil, criminal and administrative litigations. Ms. Chung’s professional activities include serving as the regional representative of the ICC Young Arbitrators Forum (2017 -2019) and the Secretary General of the Young Arbitration Practitioners' Forum under the Korean Council for International Arbitration (2010 -2015). Ms. Chung is dual-qualified as a Korean attorney and a United States (New York) attorney. Ms. Chung received her law degree from Korea University (summa cum laude) and an LL. M. from Harvard Law School where she received Roger Fisher and Frank E. A. Sander prize for her thesis.

BIOS Benjamin Na is a partner of Gowling WLG and the Head of the Advocacy Department in the firm's office in Toronto, Canada. Benjamin has 20 years of litigation experience. He regularly acts on behalf of large public corporations, financial institutions and regulatory bodies. He has considerable expertise in complex commercial litigation matters, directors’ and officers’ liability, shareholder disputes, civil fraud and banking litigation. He also advises directors and officers of private and non-for-profit corporations in the area of fiduciary duties, corporate governance and compliance obligations. He also served as Senior Counsel to Canada’s largest Bank where he was responsible for managing litigation and class actions in Canada and Caribbean, providing advice to the Bank’s business groups, and mitigating litigation and reputational risk.

BIOS Eric Olson is dual-qualified as a U. S. -California attorney and Solicitor of England Wales. He leads the International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, Maritime, and Financial Services Litigation practices of the international law firm Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang & Waimey. Mr. Olson’s practice often involves cross-border disputes and other issues arising from international commerce in such fields as trade finance; shipping and shipbuilding; banking, creditor rights, and insolvency; and complex commercial disputes. Mr. Olson litigates in both state and federal courts in the U. S. and before international arbitration organizations such as the ICC, SIAC, and LMAA. He represents clients in sensitive government investigations and advises in compliance matters involving competition law, anti-corruption, and sanctions. Mr. Olson is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and the UCLA School of Law, and he is conversant in the Korean language.

BIOS Susan Shin Susan L. Shin is a partner of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s Commercial Litigation practice group and a first-chair trial lawyer. Ms. Shin defends a range of public companies, financial institutions, and private organizations, as well as individuals, executives, and directors, in complex disputes in state and federal courts and arbitration proceedings, as well as regulatory enforcement proceedings, and internal and government investigations. She has served as trial counsel in several cases tried to verdict in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, as well as in arbitrations. Ms. Shin’s multi-disciplinary practice encompasses engagements involving consumer fraud, contract, RICO, securities, copyright, and patent claims, among others, including in the class action context, on behalf of leading retail, consumer products, and healthcare companies and organizations. Ms. Shin is a regular speaker on topics including legal ethics, commercial and financial litigation, and diversity, and is active in a variety of professional and community organizations. She is a member of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and serves on NAPABA’s CLE Selection Committee, and also has served in several leadership roles in the Asian American Bar Association of New York, including Board Member (2014 -2015), President-Elect (2015 -2016), and President (2016 -2017). Ms. Shin also has served as a board member of New York City Outward Bound Schools and the New York County Lawyers’ Association Foundation. Ms. Shin received her J. D. from Columbia University School of Law, where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, and her B. A. from Rutgers University. After graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Prior to entering law school, Ms. Shin worked as an associate in a global investment bank’s investment management business. Ms. Shin has been recognized as a New York “Rising Star” by New York Super Lawyers for Securities Litigation and Business Litigation. She also has received the 2018 “Diversity & Inclusion Champion Award” from the New York City Bar Association and the 2018 “Trailblazer Honoree” award from the Korean American Lawyers Association of Greater New York, and been named as one of the “ 50 Outstanding Asian Americans in Business” in 2015 by the Asian American Business Development Center.