40 Asian Legal Business | October 2024 By and large, those working in professional services industries view the oncoming rush of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in a positive light. Indeed, 78 percent of respondents from the legal, tax & accounting, risk & fraud, and government industries said they believe AI to be a force for good in their profession, according to the 2024 Future of Professionals Report from the Thomson Reuters Institute. This may be particularly surprising given that many of these industries have a reputation for being risk averse. It may appear that AI’s potential has conquered even the most sceptical of industries. At the same time, however, this does not mean that these professionals want GenAI applied universally. According to that same report, there are some activities that professionals see as a step too far in applying AI. Using AI for basic administrative tasks, for instance, is a widely accepted use case; however, allowing AI to make final decisions on important matters is considered a step too far. Even within this framework, there is a grey area. Notably, there are stark differences among professionals in different industries about the utility of AI to make strategic recommendations. And particularly for the legal industry, the differences could mean that clients are more willing to push boundaries than are law firms themselves. A step too far Given that ChatGPT was still released less than two years ago, professional services organiszations have needed to quickly respond with policies and procedures surrounding GenAI’s use — and in some cases, they have not had the ability to do so. Survey data from April, for example, estimated that only about one-quarter of these organiszations had either a stand-alone GenAI use policy or a larger technology policy that covered GenAI. While this percentage has surely increased in the intervening months, the fact remains that many professionals are left to their own devices about what is a proper or an improper use of GenAI. And as it turns out, different types of professionals have different opinions about where the line should be drawn as to whether one should ethically use AI or not. When asked what level of involvement would be a step too far for AI, most respondents agreed that using AI for administrative tasks, research and analysis, and drafting documents would largely be okay. On the other hand, most disagreed with allowing AI to represent clients in court or make final decisions on matters (notably, however, 21 percent of risk & fraud professionals thought even this would be reasonable). The areas in which industry professionals differ, however, is in allowing AI to provide advice or make strategic recommendations. Only 17 percent of legal professionals said they thought allowing AI to provide legal advice would be ethically acceptable; but among risk and fraud professionals, 57 percent said they believe using AI to provide advice or strategic recommendations is acceptable — and among tax and trade professionals, that figure rises to 65 percent. A relationship business This disconnect could come from what these professionals see as the nature of advice. Legal has long been a relationship business. And there’s a reason that when corporate attorneys are asked what they want from their outside law firms, it’s quality and communication above all else. As a result, it’s no surprise that when legal professionals have been asked about their greatest fears concerning AI in the profession, that loss of the human touch regularly tops the list. On the other hand, the risk and fraud and tax and trade professions, while still heavily focused on relationships, also tend to be heavily analytically focused. Naturally, this means that the nature of advice is different — more quantitative, less open to interpretation, and thus potentially more able to be automated. It also doesn’t hurt that both the tax and risk professions are facing a talent crunch, and simply need more resources to provide advice — a resource such as GenAI. One professional staff at a United States tax firm predicted: “It’s going to solve the problem of not having enough talent entering the industry by enabling massive efficiencies in accounting preparation, review, and client service.” Asian Legal Business is seeking thought-provoking opinion pieces from readers on subjects ranging from Asia’s legal industry to law firm management, technology and others. Email ranajit.dam@tr.com for submission guidelines. Legal, other professional services disagree on whether AI should give advice By Zach Warren The Back Page Zach Warren is the manager for enterprise content for technology and innovation with the Thomson Reuters Institute. Zach charts the future of professional services industries, including legal, tax, and risk & fraud, through writing, podcasts, and more. A version of this piece was originally published by the Thomson Reuters Institute. Reprinted with permission.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA0NzE4Mw==