Large Language Models for Legal Interpretation? Don’t Take Their Word for It
Recent breakthroughs in statistical language modeling have impacted countless domains, including the law. Chatbot applications such as ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek—which incorporate “large” neural network-based language models (LLMs) trained on vast swathes of internet text—process and generate natural language with remarkable fluency. Recently, scholars have proposed adding AI chatbot applications to the legal interpretive toolkit. These suggestions are no longer theoretical: in 2024, a U.S. judge queried LLM chatbots to interpret a disputed insurance contract and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
We assess this emerging practice from a technical, linguistic, and legal perspective. This Article explains the design features and product development cycles of LLM-based chatbot applications, with a focus on properties that may promote their unintended misuse—or intentional abuse—by legal interpreters. Next, we argue that legal practitioners run the risk of inappropriately relying on LLMs to resolve legal interpretive questions. We conclude with guidance on how such systems—and the language models which underpin them—can be responsibly employed alongside other tools to investigate legal meaning.
Continue readingLarge Language Models for Legal Interpretation? Don’t Take Their Word for It.
Executive Summary
The article examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for legal interpretation, highlighting potential risks and limitations. It assesses the technical, linguistic, and legal aspects of LLM-based chatbot applications and provides guidance on responsible employment. The authors argue that legal practitioners should not rely solely on LLMs for resolving legal interpretive questions, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of these tools.
Key Points
- ▸ LLMs have limitations in understanding legal context and nuances
- ▸ Risk of over-reliance on LLMs for legal interpretation
- ▸ Need for responsible employment of LLMs alongside other tools
Merits
Improved Efficiency
LLMs can process and analyze large volumes of text quickly, potentially improving the efficiency of legal research and interpretation
Demerits
Lack of Contextual Understanding
LLMs may struggle to understand the complexities and nuances of legal language, leading to inaccurate or misleading interpretations
Expert Commentary
The article provides a timely and important critique of the use of LLMs for legal interpretation. As the legal profession increasingly adopts AI-powered tools, it is essential to recognize both the potential benefits and limitations of these technologies. By highlighting the risks of over-reliance on LLMs and emphasizing the need for responsible employment, the authors provide a nuanced and balanced perspective on this emerging issue. Ultimately, the effective use of LLMs will require a deep understanding of their capabilities and limitations, as well as a commitment to ongoing evaluation and refinement.
Recommendations
- ✓ Develop guidelines for the use of LLMs in legal interpretation
- ✓ Provide training for legal practitioners on the responsible use of LLMs
