CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 207Artificial Intelligence in LawLegal Education and Practice InnovationsDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law

Open access
Alarie, Benjamin, Niblett, Anthony, Yoon, Albert H·2018·University of Toronto Law Journal
DOI 10.3138/utlj.2017-0052
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is exerting an influence on all professions and industries. We have autonomous vehicles, instantaneous translation among the world’s leading languages, and search engines that rapidly locate information anywhere on the web in a way that is tailored to a user’s interests and past search history. Law is not immune from disruption by new technology. Software tools are beginning to affect various aspects of lawyers’ work, including those tasks that historically relied upon expert human judgment, such as predicting court outcomes. These new software tools present new challenges and new opportunities. In the short run, we can expect greater legal transparency, more efficient dispute resolution, improved access to justice, and new challenges to the traditional organization of private law firms delivering legal services on a billable hour basis through a leveraged partner-associate model. With new technology, lawyers will be empowered to work more efficiently, deepen and broaden their areas of expertise, and provide more value to clients. These developments will predictably transform both how lawyers do legal work and resolve disputes on behalf of their clients. In the longer term, it is difficult to predict what the impact of artificially intelligent tools will be, as lawyers incorporate them into their practice and expand their range of services on behalf of clients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3138/utlj.2017-0052

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 14 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Alarie, B., Niblett, A., & Yoon, A. H.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Alarie, Benjamin
ORCID
Venue
University of Toronto Law Journal
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Published
2018-01
Volume
68
Issue
supplement 1
Pages
106-124
ISSN
  • 0042-0220 (ISSN-L)
  • 1710-1174
DOI
10.3138/utlj.2017-0052
OpenAlex
W2767613032
Cited by
207
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
53.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • University of Toronto Law Journal (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, legal practice, legal profession, legal software, dispute resolution, access to justice, legal transparency, law firms, billable hours, attorney-client relationship, technological disruption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review