Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As digitalization penetrates nearly every facet of our lives, the legal industry faces some monumental challenges. The massive amounts of data that lawyers need to search, navigate and absorb — including but not limited to legal evidence, litigation data, legal source materials, background research documents, practice area guidance and more — add complexity to even the most mundane tasks.
The sheer volume of information is unprecedented, and the size of the task is “machine scale,” which is to say that it is well beyond human capabilities. To keep pace, we need increasingly powerful and sophisticated algorithms to mine the data, organize it and identify meaningful patterns. These are big challenges, but the payoff can be significant. When AI is deployed appropriately with proper oversight, it helps us make connections we couldn't see before, leading us to new legal and business insights, and providing quick and accurate answers to the questions we have as we try to solve legal problems. But teaching machines how to interpret “legalese” is nearly as challenging as the task it is trying to solve.
AI needs help from human experts. AI technologies are not entirely autonomous. They need a representative body of data from which to learn — the more the better. But first that data needs to be normalized, structured and accurately labeled or tagged. AI works by finding patterns in data, but “dirty,” inconsistent data can get in the way, and it can teach your system to “learn” the wrong things. Normalizing data typically requires a lot of data analysis before machine learning and other techniques can be successful. In fact, effective AI still relies on regular intervention by human data scientists and legal domain experts who iteratively “teach” machines to make better decisions.
Teaching AI legalese is hard. There is a lot of nuance in legal language, much of which comes in the form of rhetorical persuasion and argument. It can also be hard for machines to distinguish between straight-up “facts” and “legal facts.” Many legal terms are in Latin, and there are countless domain-specific terms and plenty of jargon and abbreviations. Language and terminology varies from one practice area to another. Finally, discerning the specific context in which specific words or passages appear is a huge challenge for AI. With the help of new tools like BERT, we are making big strides in this area, but there is plenty of room for us to get better.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.