I haven't had a chance to read the 24-page survey, "ChatGPT and Generative AI in Legal, Corporate & Tax Markets," and sadly there is no table of contents to scan. The post makes me wonder if I was wrong about predicting that GCs would ban ChatGPT as a security risk. Are we more likely to see it treated more like legal research? GCs have no problem with firms using Lexis or WestLaw, they just don't want to pay for it. As I read the post I admit to a level of confusion. It may be a result of the fact that I've never actually seen or read any articles about how law firms would charge for ChatGPT. If treated like legal research, it is not something that would be directly passed along. One quote says, "Should AI be used for chargeable work, the cost to clients would need to be significantly reduced." Unless some sort of value billing is in play, one would expect that to be a natural consequence. If AI assists with the drafting of a document and it's reduced the time from four hours to one, then they would be billed at a reduced rate, right? But as law firms have in the past tried to bill for research, phone calls and every photocopy or scan, some sort of recouping is expected. So if you end up charging for the AI service or a premium on the hours, does that four hour task now cost the client the equivalent of five or six hours? If you have an AI charge model at your firm, please call or drop me a line and educate me. I must be missing something here. Read more at Thomson Reuters: Corporate attorneys don't want to pay law firms for ChatGPT when they could use it themselves
Published June 30, 2023.
