[akira2501]

It's already a common grounds for a malpractice suit. In a lot of cases these will be handled by the attorneys insurance and will probably be settled.

You really shouldn't take the absence of evidence as any sort of evidence itself.

[otterley]

Using an LLM is “common grounds” for a malpractice suit? Come on, the technology hasn’t even been around that long. Without corroborating evidence, why should anyone believe you?

[akira2501]

Failure to properly perform discovery is already common grounds for a malpractice suit. I don't care if you believe me. You seem to have your mind made up anyways.

[otterley]

Yes, you can be held liable for failing to properly perform discovery. But the general case isn’t what we’re talking about here. It’s the specific case of using an LLM to assist with it.

> You seem to have your mind made up anyways.

I haven't made up my mind about anything; it's you who claimed that using an LLM "is a great way to get sued for negligence." It's a fundamental rule of debate that person who makes the argument bears the burden of supporting it.

You seem to be making the implicit assumption that using an LLM to assist with the process will probably be found to constitute negligence. Again, why should anyone believe you, especially if it hasn’t happened yet? Your argument is just FUD, pure and simple.

As an attorney I can tell you these questions just aren't that simple. You can get sued for anything. But that's not really all that important. What matters is whether LLMs would do a worse job of performing document review than human review would. The answer to that question will depend on the specific facts of the case and the current state of the art.

We simply don't know yet what the error rate is of using an LLM; and the tech is improving rapidly. One should expect enterprising attorneys to test them out experimentally to build trust. For example, they can easily be tested vs. human review on small document corpuses.