Published on:
15 Oct 2024
4
min read
Photo credit: Pixabay; https://www.pexels.com/photo/silhouette-of-man-247899/
In parts 1 & 2,¹ we discussed:
- LawNet AI, which features AI-generated summaries of cases not already headnoted (i.e. summarised) by Justice Law Clerks, who will continue to do so²; and
- the (mis)use of headnotes and AI-generated summaries (collectively, "Summaries").
In part 3, we'll explore the necessity of pain.
--
I suggest that good disputes lawyers must be able to read cases quickly and form accurate conclusions.
In particular, they need to be able to skim a case and quickly:
- absorb the facts;
- extract the legal test;
- identify key points that help or undermine their case;
- single out helpful quotes...
...the list goes on.
And that's because disputes lawyers are often placed in a position where they need to process cases for the purposes of submissions (written and oral) without the luxury of time.
Consider the following real-life scenarios:
a) it's 12pm, and written submissions are due at 4pm. The team is still finalising the draft, and your senior has just asked you to quickly find a local case to support a certain proposition;
b) you have an interlocutory hearing beginning in half an hour, and your learned friend suddenly emails you 3 cases that they say they may rely on at the hearing;³ or
c) you are in the midst of an oral hearing, and the Court suddenly takes you to a particular case in your learned friend's bundle and asks if it can be interpreted in a specific matter that is detrimental to your case.⁴
So what do Summaries have to do with this?
Well, in these scenarios:
1️⃣ it is insufficient to rely on Summaries alone;⁵ and
2️⃣ relying on Summaries carries risks.⁶
And there's a bigger point at play. I suggest that for the mere mortals amongst us,⁷ if we want to train our ability to read cases quickly and accurately, there is no real substitute for reading the actual cases.
Thousands⁸ of them.
And, where necessary, repeatedly.
--
Summaries may well reduce the time needed to read cases, and correspondingly, reduce the pain and suffering involved.
But I suggest that they are akin to a motorcycle that:
- cannot be used all the time;
- can break at inconvenient times; and
- the use of which causes certain muscles to atrophy.
This of course does not mean that we should throw out our motorcycles. There's nothing to stop us from using them, from time to time, to get from point A to point B.
But I suggest that it is a mistake to start using them only, and all the time...
...when we will eventually be tested on our ability to run the same distance.
Personally, I really hate running.⁹ But if I have to run to make a living...
...then I have no choice but to do it, notwithstanding the pain.
And there's a limit to how much pain technology can take away.⁹
--
In part 4, we'll conclude by exploring whether sometimes, the pain is not just a necessary byproduct...
...but is the entire point.
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
¹ Part 1: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/khelvin-xu_footnotes-law-research-activity-7240209035168206848-Gn3x/.
Part 2: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/khelvin-xu_footnotes-law-research-activity-7241640208050388993-QBFr/.
² https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7241640208050388993?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7241640208050388993%2C7241787226274062337%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287241787226274062337%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7241640208050388993%29.
³ If this happens to you, don't take it personally. After all, a conscientious lawyer should be preparing for a hearing even in the window between written submissions being exchanged and the hearing taking place, and often identifies new case(s) to further strengthen arguments, shore up weak points, or respond to a point being made for the first time.
⁴ In an ideal world, we would have identified all such points in the course of our preparation and be ready for them. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world.¹¹
⁵ See Part 1.
⁶ See Part 2.
⁷ And I certainly consider myself one.
⁸ This isn't an exaggeration. Assuming 223 workdays a year,¹² and an average of 1 case read per day,¹³ that comes up to over 2,000 cases the by 8PQE mark (including cases read during the 1 year training contract period, but not even including cases read in law school or during Part A / B of the Singapore Bar Examinations).
⁹ I mean literally, not metaphorically.
¹⁰ For the avoidance of doubt, my comments here are limited to AI-generated summaries only. I make no comment on other AI-related tools and products, as I prefer not to generalise on their usefulness.
¹¹ For what it's worth, in an ideal world, disputes lawyers would be out of jobs. So, can't complain!
¹² Based on 52 weeks and 5 working days per week, less public holidays and, say, 26 days of leave (annual / medical / childcare / etc).
¹³ Which is probably an underestimate.
