Latest news with #legalProfessionals
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Will Soon Replace Many Human Arbitrators
Artificial intelligence is already affecting the way that we resolves disputes. Arbitration is a process whereby the parties to a dispute agree that it will be privately decided outside of the normal court process. Instead of the formal and heavily-structured litigation procedures of our courts, which can be very expensive and take literally years to reach a conclusion, arbitration offers a much more informal and less-structured process where a result can be reached within just a few months for a fraction of the cost. Instead of a judge, the parties to an arbitration hire what amounts to a private judge, known as the arbitrator of course, to oversee the arbitration process, consider the law and relevant evidence, and come to a conclusion. The downside to arbitration is that it amounts to a giant corner-cutting of the normal litigation process. The parties to an arbitration may or may not have access to discovery, which at any rate will be abbreviated and typically less than through the courts, and generally there is no effective appeal of the arbitrator's opinion. While the results reached by our courts are certainly not perfect ― there is a reason why we have full-time courts for appeals ― those results are likely by several magnitude to be more accurate than those reached by arbitration. Basically, the parties to an arbitration are trading the potential quality of the result to get the dispute over with as cheaply and quickly as possible. The entire philosophy of parties who agree to arbitration may be summed up as "get the dispute over with and get back to normal business as soon as possible." Particularly for large and deep-pocketed enterprises that are frequently involved in litigation, and for whom the results of litigation are viewed simply as an aggregate rounding error as opposed to a life-changing event, arbitration is a far more efficient method of resolving their myriad disputes than spending oodles in courtroom litigation. This now brings us to the arbitrators. The goal of these private judges is, again, to review the law and the evidence and reach a conclusion as quickly and efficiently as possible. In line with the purposes of arbitration, the goal is to resolve the dispute one way or another so that the parties can move on. The arbitrator's award is usually final since the courts may only review an arbitration award for some very serious error, sometimes known as manifest error, such as where the arbitration process in a particular case was corrupt or if the arbitrator exceeds his or her authority. Yes, some arbitration agreements provide for an appellate process, but these are quite rare. Most arbitrators are highly conscientious professionals who take their job very seriously. They carefully review the law and the evidence and attempt to reach the result that they think is correct under the circumstances. These arbitrators offer the parties a quality of decision that is at least equal to the courts and in some situations (particularly with specialized subject-matter) might even be better. Unfortunately, the better arbitrators naturally tend to end up with the more significant cases. Downstream, the picture isn't so pretty. The sad truth is that I've seen a lot of bad arbitration decisions of the years. Cases where it was obvious that the arbitrator simply "mailed it in" without spending much time trying to figure out the law or analyze the evidence. This is a result of mediocre lawyers becoming mediocre judges (more often than not through an election) and then leaving the bench early so that they can make the big bucks as a mediocre arbitrator. They don't have to worry about the quality of their decisions either, because there is no court of appeals looking over their shoulders. This isn't rough justice ― it's really not justice at all. Honestly, the parties should instead just flip a coin and live with the result. These mail-it-in arbitrators tend to congregate towards the lower-end cases. You might think this means that they are doing the least amount of damage here, but these smaller arbitrations often involve small businesses and individuals who don't have the financial strength to simply write off a bad decision as a rounding error in the same way that large enterprises do. Luckily, a new solution is likely to appear in the way of using artificial intelligence as a passable substitute for arbitrators in these smaller cases. Lawyers are already using AI to analyze evidence, summarize witness testimony, and conduct legal research. It would be a relatively small additional step for the parties to an arbitration to put together their briefs and evidence, upload it to the server, and then ask the AI program to render a decision. Two minutes later that decision will appear. The immediate objection will be that, "AI makes too many mistakes". While it is true that AI can make mistakes, it is also true the human arbitrators make mistakes as well. While the mistakes of most human arbitrators are honest, human arbitrators still suffer from implicit bias, they misread court opinions or err in their analysis of the evidence. Then, as discussed above, some human arbitrators at the lower levels are some combination of intellectually lazy and incompetent which make their arbitration awards little more than a form of random justice ― the parties might as well just flip a coin ― and certainly even a glitchy AI algorithm will be better than that. To take just one example of implicit bias, there has long been a concern that certain arbitrators working for certain arbitration firms will tend to find in favor of the firms who send them the most business. Or, in other words, some arbitrators are "voting their wallets" instead of strictly in favor of the merits of a particular case. AI holds the potential to eliminate this form of implicit bias, as well as other implicit biases arising from the race, sex, religion, or socio-economic status of a party. Unlike a human arbitrator who cannot "unring a bell" and may be swayed by evidence ultimately deemed to be inadmissible, an AI program can completely discount evidence that it deems to be inadmissible and without subliminally taking it into account. Admittedly, while the move from human arbitrators to AI takes place, it will likely be necessary for some human review to take place to make sure that the AI analysis hasn't gone totally off the rails. But since AI is inherently a learning algorithm, over time this constant human review may be dispensed with and the courts can review the arbitration awards as a perquisite to enrolling the award as a legal judgment just as they do now. But here it is to be remembered that if a human makes a mistake, probably only that particular human learns from it. If AI makes a mistake, the entire AI service learns from it. So, as we have seen from news reports of lawyer who have inadvisedly filed briefs AI-written legal briefs, AI will often just make up legal authorities out of thin air. But the AI algorithms can be modified going forward to provide for greater self-checking and accuracy, to eventually a degree of accuracy that even the most meticulous arbitrator would be hard-pressed to replicate. We have not yet discussed another advantage of AI which is the cost-savings that it potentially offers to litigants. Other than their own attorney fees, the single largest cost in any arbitration is of course the arbitrator's fee. With arbitrators charging many hundreds of dollars per hour (and with some superstar arbitrators now having an hourly rate in excess of $1,000), the fees ultimately charged by an arbitrator in a particular case can be very expensive. By contrast, the token charge for AI to make the same decision might be only $50 or something. Indeed, AI arbitration may prove to be so cheap that the parties could submit their arbitration briefs with attached evidence to several different AI services to check the results for accuracy of the decisions and still probably not exceed the cost of a single hour of a human arbitrator's time. It should be expected that the large legal database firms such as Westlaw and Lexis will develop these AI arbitration services sooner rather than later. They already have up-to-date legal authorities pre-loaded for AI consumption and they are both offering AI legal research services to attorneys already. Presumably, somebody at these firms will one day wake up and see that they are missing out on a potentially significant share of the lucrative arbitration marketplace and soon thereafter add arbitration consoles to their existing service packages. As with all things, AI arbitration will have its limits. For some time, the larger arbitration cases will likely require human arbitrators to make the difficult decisions regarding the deep nuances of the law and evidence which make the difference in such cases. But for the smaller arbitration cases where the parties are just eager for some quick and cheap outcome whatever it is, AI arbitration holds substantial promise. AI arbitration is coming, it is only a matter of when.
Globe and Mail
05-06-2025
- General
- Globe and Mail
Too many disabled Canadians are quietly denied the right to make a will
Across the country, a basic legal right is being denied. People with autism, cerebral palsy or other cognitive and developmental disabilities are often unjustly presumed incapable of making a will. These assumptions don't come from the courts. They come from the professionals who are supposed to help: lawyers, advisers, institutions. And they're wrong. Because under Canadian law, a diagnosis is not disqualification. Some people are legally incapable of making a will. They include those with advanced dementia, severe brain injuries or other conditions that leave them unable to understand what a will is, what they own or who they might wish to provide for. Some individuals, with conditions such as autism or intellectual disabilities, for example, may not meet the test. In those cases, the law rightly steps in to protect them. But the fact that some individuals lack capacity doesn't justify assuming all people with disabilities do. Barriers to access: New Canada Disability Benefit will leave many people with disabilities behind The legal test for whether someone is mentally capable to make a valid will is rooted in the precedent of Banks v. Goodfellow, decided more than 150 years ago in the English High Court, and it affirms that understanding and intention matter more than labels. John Banks, the subject of that case, was a wealthy man with a history of mental illness. He believed he was pursued by evil spirits. In 1870, he wrote a will leaving his estate to his niece. A distant cousin challenged the will, arguing he lacked the mental capacity to make it. The court disagreed. It found that Mr. Banks, despite his illness, understood what a will was. He knew what he owned. He knew who might expect to inherit. And he made a conscious, rational choice. His delusions didn't affect that decision and so the will stood. That case still governs Canadian law on capacity today. A person is capable of making a will if, at the time of signing, they understand what a will is and what it does. They must also have a general understanding of what they own, who might reasonably expect to benefit from their estate, and they must not be under the influence of a delusion or mental illness that directly affects their decisions. Most importantly, they must not be under the influence of a delusion or mental illness that directly affects their decisions. It's a flexible, human test. It doesn't require legal fluency or mathematical precision. It requires comprehension and a free, rational intention. And yet many individuals with disabilities are denied the right to make a will before they even get the chance to demonstrate that understanding. 'We are not a priority': Disability advocates say lack of minister sends a message The problem lies not in the law, but in how it's applied. Too often, professionals mistake difference for deficiency. They see a diagnosis, or a non-traditional way of communicating, and assume the person isn't capable. That could be a non-speaking adult using a speech-generating device, or a person with cerebral palsy who communicates slowly, but thinks clearly. These are individuals who may meet all the legal requirements, but who are often excluded based on how they present. That's not caution. That's bias. The role of legal professionals isn't to screen people. It's to meet them where they are. That might mean slowing the pace, using visual explanations, involving trusted support people or arranging a formal capacity assessment. These aren't barriers – they're tools to ensure inclusion. It's also worth noting that not everyone with capacity needs a will. If a person holds all of their assets jointly, or utilizes beneficiary designations for assets such as RRSPs, pensions or life insurance policies, those assets may pass outside the will altogether. In some cases, letting the default rules of intestacy – the legal system that decides who inherits when someone dies without a will – apply may be entirely appropriate, so long as the person understands the implications and makes that choice freely. At its core, a will is about more than property. It's about autonomy. It's about being seen, being heard and leaving a mark. And that power belongs to anyone who meets the legal test, regardless of diagnosis, disability or how they communicate. In a country that prides itself on inclusion and human dignity, it's time we started acting on it. Max Shilleto is an estate planning lawyer and disability advocate in Vancouver.
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NAEGELI Deposition & Trial Reaches Clients Across Pennsylvania Through Philadelphia Office
PHILADELPHIA, PA / / June 1, 2025 / Since the launch of NAEGELI Deposition & Trial's Philadelphia office in September 2024, the firm has witnessed a surge in demand not only from the Philadelphia legal community, but from attorneys throughout the greater Pennsylvania region. What began as a strategic move to better serve Philadelphia law firms has organically grown into a broader mission: delivering premier litigation support to legal professionals across the entire state, whether they are based in a bustling city or small-town community. The wide-ranging impact of NAEGELI Deposition & Trial's Philadelphia office was not accidental, but a direct result of their initial strategic planning. Expanding into Philadelphia was about opening doors to access and providing critical services like Court Reporting and Legal Videography to attorneys in all corners of Pennsylvania, even in regions where such resources are often scarce or nonexistent. That vision is now becoming a reality, and the results are measurable: more calls, more scheduling requests, and most importantly, improved client service. "It is incredibly rewarding to see our expansion strategy not only succeed in Philadelphia, but ripple out to the entire state," said Marsha J. Naegeli, CEO and Founder of NAEGELI Deposition & Trial. "We have always believed every legal professional, no matter where they are located, deserves access to the best litigation support available." Unlike many court reporting agencies that primarily focus their resources on major metros, NAEGELI Deposition & Trial distinguishes itself by deploying in-person court reporters throughout the nation. In exceptionally remote areas where sending a physical court reporter is not feasible, NAEGELI's remote deposition technicians step in to ensure a flawless virtual experience. No matter where their clients are located, NAEGELI Deposition & Trial is dedicated to delivering the full spectrum of litigation support, including Court Reporting, Videography, Remote Depositions, Legal Interpreting, Transcription, Trial Presentation, and Document Management. NAEGELI's approach is not reactive, it is intentional. The firm's team regularly engages with attorneys and legal staff to anticipate needs, strategize around demand, and position resources where they matter most. The increasing volume of requests from outside Philadelphia has sparked a renewed investment in expanding conference room availability, placing more professional staff throughout Pennsylvania, and ensuring that all legal professionals receive the level of service and attention NAEGELI Deposition & Trial is known for. At the helm of these initiatives is Marsha J. Naegeli. Her vision for equitable, high-quality litigation support continues to drive the firm's expansion efforts. Under her leadership, NAEGELI has consistently set the bar for innovation and accessibility in the legal services industry, growing coast-to-coast while staying grounded in exceptional client care. "Whether it is Philadelphia or Punxsutawney, if there is an attorney who needs us, we will be there," Marsha Naegeli affirms. From Philadelphia to the farthest reaches of the Keystone State, NAEGELI is here to ensure your next deposition or trial runs seamlessly. With a growing base of loyal Pennsylvania clients, the firm reaffirms its commitment to delivering the same dependable, technologically advanced, and confidential services that have made it a trusted partner to attorneys nationwide. To schedule one of NAEGELI Deposition & Trial's comprehensive court reporting and litigation support services, call (800) 528-3335, email schedule@ or chat with a live representative through their website. Country: USAMedia Contact: NAEGELI Deposition & TrialCompany: NAEGELI Deposition & TrialEmail: contact@ number: (215) 610-1212Website: SOURCE: NAEGELI Deposition & Trial View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
