Property lawyers who fail to use artificial intelligence tools could be found negligent just as easily as those who use them carelessly, participants in The Law Association’s CPD webinar heard on Thursday 27 August.
The AI for Property Practitioners session was presented by Joanna Pidgeon, Director at Pidgeon Judd and member of The Law Association’s Property Law Committee, and Lloyd Gallagher, Managing Partner, at Gallagher & Co and Convenor of The Law Association’s Technology & Law Committee.
Pidgeon opened with a finding from the UK jurisdiction task force: that lawyers who fail to deploy AI where it could reduce costs for clients may be exposed to negligence claims. Gallagher said the challenge is finding the balance. “You don’t want to be in a position of being negligent for doing that, but you also don’t want to be in a position of being negligent for not using AI to keep costs down for your clients.”
Both presenters spoke from direct experience. Pidgeon said her firm uses Jude, formerly Lighthouse, for processing large disclosure documents, citing body corporate purchases as a strong use case. “It is quite good at summarising it. But you still need to at least scan it, to see that something hasn’t been left out. Sometimes your knowledge is what isn’t there as well.”
Gallagher said no single tool does everything well, and recommended practitioners run multiple free trials side by side before committing. His current preference for research work is Nylon, formerly LawCyborg, alongside Lexis+ and Westlaw.
On risk, Gallagher said professional obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act cannot be delegated to a machine, and that AI’s tendency to produce confident but wrong answers demands constant human oversight. “It’s like having a five-year-old who’s learning law. It’s only as good as the prompt you put in, and it’s only as good as when you tell it it’s wrong.”
On privacy, he was unambiguous, he said feeding client information into a public AI tool without anonymisation is a breach of the Privacy Act 2020 and the LCA. “The minute you do so, you’ve effectively created a breach.”
Billing remains unsettled. “If AI was able to cut down four hours, but I still have to review the AI, what do I bill?” Gallagher said. Both presenters agreed the minimum requirement is transparency with clients about how AI is being used and what it means for cost.
On firm governance, Pidgeon said management cannot leave AI to junior staff. “We need to be involved in terms of setting the parameters and the rules and so on, and making sure our staff understand all these things.”
Gallagher’s closing message was direct. “Use it, use it wisely, and it will benefit both you and your client.”
The Law Association’s Technology & Law Committee published guidelines on AI for members in 2023. The white paper “AI and the Law” is available to read here.
0 Comments