Thinking About AI

Recently, I wrapped up a long-pending zoning case here in East Hampton. It involved some two years of applications and litigation. Given all the current news about Artificial Intelligence, I reflected on the human factor and how AI might have reduced the amount of time to cross the finish line, particularly in forming strategy, and in assembling the documents and closing briefs needed to make the case to the zoning board. The underlying presentation was supported by detailed architectural drawings prepared by environmentalists and engineers.

Could these drawings be generated by AI? Perhaps. If AI was downloaded with a set of facts, could it write a memorandum outlining the legal arguments for variance relief? Yes, I suppose it could, but not without the input of some 50 years of experience before a particular board and familiarity with the legal precedents, most of which are not in the public domain. How would AI search the East Hampton Village records absent a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request? Nor do I see AI standing in for a lawyer before a board of five people to present a case. AI may be able to read a transcript of a hearing and draft the written decision, provided each board member voiced their opinion and a vote was taken. But maybe not. Not all board members will explain their reasoning at the hearing in advance of a vote, which is seldom done in public; rather, it is done in private by consensus.

A cursory search online shows several AI companies offering services geared toward the legal profession. Most tasks are organizational, administrative, and draw upon widely available information. So, I guess there is still a place for me on the legal front. At least until AI figures out how to put on a jacket and tie and make an introductory joke before the start of the hearing.