AI for Unrepresented Parties : Minimizing Risk

#guides

Author: Amanda Hobbs


For accessibility, this guide has been translated into eleven languages: Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, French, Korean, Persian (Farsi), Punjabi, Spanish, Tigrigna, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese.

Artificial intelligence, or AI, has quickly become a popular tool for unrepresented parties navigating Canada’s legal system. On the surface, AI is a tool that seems to save time and reduce stress for parties who cannot easily access a lawyer. But despite these apparent benefits, AI’s output is not necessarily correct, complete, or reliable, and trusting in AI for legal support can have unintended consequences. Understanding how to use AI strategically and when not to use AI can reduce risk to unrepresented parties. This guide is for anyone who wants to understand and minimize the risks of using AI for legal information, legal advice, and legal drafting.

This guide provides information on:

  • What is legal information?

  • What are the risks of using AI for legal information?

  • How can I minimize the risks of using AI for legal information?

  • What is legal advice?

  • What are the risks of using AI for legal advice?

  • How can the risks of using AI for legal advice be minimized?

  • What kind of legal drafting is necessary to resolve legal issues?

  • What are the risks of using AI for legal drafting?

  • How can I minimize the risks of using AI for legal drafting?

This guide does not contain legal advice, and should not be used or considered to be a replacement for legal advice. It is not a comprehensive overview of all possible risks to unrepresented parties using AI. This document aims to serve as an informational guide only and a starting-off point for using AI more cautiously.

We are grateful to the Department of Justice Canada’s - Independent Legal Advice program for funding this guide.

Found this resource helpful?  We would love to hear how this resource was useful! Click here to provide feedback.

Next
Next

Intervention: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia