Louisiana Appeals Court Judge Advocates for Education Over Regulation in AI Use, Reveals Letter Drafted with ChatGPT-4

In a recent open letter titled “A Call for Education Over Regulation,” Louisiana state court judge Judge Scott U. Schlegel advocates for a cautious and informed approach to regulating the use of generative AI in the legal profession, according to an article by eDiscovery Today.

Serving on the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, Judge Schlegel emphasizes the unnecessary nature of specific orders prohibiting or mandating disclosure of generative AI use. He argues that existing ethical standards and professional responsibilities within the legal profession, such as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, sufficiently address concerns related to competence, confidentiality, and candor.

Judge Schlegel highlights Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 3.3 of the ABA Model Rules, along with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as comprehensive guidelines that already cover issues associated with generative AI technologies. He cautions against redundancy and potential confusion that could arise from additional, AI-specific regulations. Furthermore, he contends that the rapid evolution of AI technology may render specific orders quickly outdated, limiting their practical utility.

Expressing concern that overregulation might impede innovation and discourage the legal profession from leveraging beneficial technologies, Judge Schlegel advocates for a balanced integration of technology within the existing ethical framework. He asserts that lawyers should retain the ability to exercise judgment in incorporating generative AI tools, promoting a flexible and adaptive approach.

Notably, Judge Schlegel reveals that he drafted the letter using ChatGPT-4, acknowledging that this disclosure might prompt skepticism. However, he underscores the importance of recognizing that the value of content generated through AI is contingent upon legal expertise guiding its use. He likens generative AI to a tool, emphasizing that its effectiveness mirrors that of a first draft by a junior associate or law clerk. Judge Schlegel concludes by affirming the need for proper use of generative AI tools, treating them as aids that require thorough review and verification, while cautioning against their misuse.