As AI’s knowledge grows, and those operating it become increasingly confident in its accuracy, where does that leave conveyancers? While cyber conveyancer Peter Ambrose accepts the sector may be losing the monopoly on knowledge, he explains why AI can never replicate or replace the human touch. Check back on 10th April for the next instalment.
Ever since we started using artificial intelligence (AI) at The Partnership, there’s been a particularly grumblesome elephant in the corner of the room that we’ve been doing our best to ignore. As we gaze in often shocked awe at the amazing talents of this emerging technology, the murmurings of Negative Nelly, as we like to call her, are getting louder.
The thing is, the more time we spend with the technology to help our lawyers offer a more efficient and indeed safer service, the more we realise that some of Nelly’s concerns might be valid. The problem is we’re not sure what to do about addressing them. That’s because the more we see AI doing a good job, the more concerned we become that we will become increasingly reliant on it. Which rather undermines the huge effort we put in helping our legal team further develop their investigative and analytical skills.
Nelly could indeed be right to raise questions about the future.
Losing our monopoly on knowledge
It’s acknowledged that the role of the knowledge worker is where AI will have a huge impact, with lawyers very much at the centre of this. We work with huge amounts of unstructured data which needs interpreting and explaining to clients – core elements of which we are finding can be addressed to some extent by the use of appropriate technology. The monopoly of knowledge of conveyancing we have enjoyed for centuries is very much under threat.
Unfortunately, this does give rise to outsiders who think conveyancing is just a tick-box exercise that is slow because lawyers [a] Don’t care [b] Are lazy [c] Are really inefficient] (select all that apply), and think they have spotted an opportunity to enter the market.
It’s no surprise that increasing numbers of experience-free entrepreneurs are getting in touch with me, emboldened with their new superhuman powers to build instant applications that they are convinced will solve the problem of the “home buying and selling process”.
The devil is in the detail
However, anyone involved in conveyancing in any detail will tell you of the nuances and challenges with every case. Every property is different, so every document needs to be scrutinised carefully, which is the heart of the problem.
Technology can check documents almost instantly and spot legal issues that the lawyer may or may not have found. But whilst this magic pixie dust can delight and surprise, only the most naïve lawyer would rely on it without cross-checking with the original source documents. That’s why it’s so important that any software claiming to interpret documents directs the lawyer to the originating evidence – provenance is key.
Today, every lawyer I speak to assures me they would never rely solely on the technology and would always double-check the original documentation; this goes to the heart of their legal training. The challenge is that now, paralegals and trainees are becoming more familiar with this technology, which alleviates the need for the previously manual, tedious review of sources.
This method of investigation is reflected in the way students study today, with the internet providing them with valid answers to questions quickly and easily. If learning habits are moving away from rote-learning and understanding, lawyers will simply not need to understand the legal challenges, as long as they can find accurate answers quickly.
Not just a smart assistant
Which is why Nelly has that concerned look; because it’s just a matter of time before lawyers have sufficient levels of trust in systems and no longer feel the need to cross-reference sources. Their need to learn and develop will begin to reduce.
This slowing of the need for legal technical expertise development will be across the board, which by itself is not necessarily a problem, other than it undermines the role we see for lawyers – the investigative interpretation of legal issues for clients, as they will no longer have a need for that.
Which is why I believe we will see the role of technology changing from just a smart assistant, to being the identifier of issues, requiring the lawyer to focus on the communication side of things. This means we need to be teaching our new lawyers not only how to investigate issues, but more heavily interpretive focussed with stronger people-centric skills.
A change which should put a smile on Nelly’s face.
About the author
Peter Ambrose is the managing director of The Partnership, a company modernising the conveyancing process. With a legal background and strong technology expertise, he founded the firm to transform traditional residential transactions. Over the past decade, he has built the company into a respected brand with offices in London and Guildford, a team of over 80 employees, and more than 3,000 cases each year.
