As AI becomes more widely used across the legal sector, it’s understandable that questions are being asked about how far it should go.
AI can process large amounts of information quickly, identify relevant details and reduce time spent on repetitive tasks. But does that mean it can replace human judgement?
The short answer is no.
AI is most useful when it supports the people making decisions, not when it tries to make those decisions for them.
What is AI good at?
One of AI’s biggest strengths is its ability to work through large amounts of information quickly.
That can be particularly useful when dealing with medical records. A case can contain thousands of pages of information, spread across different providers, documents and dates.
Finding a particular event or piece of information can take time, even when you know what you’re looking for.
AI can help with tasks such as:
- Finding information within medical records
- Identifying relevant events and dates
- Summarising information
- Answering questions about case documents
- Reducing repetitive admin work
Used well, this can give legal and clinical teams more time to focus on work that actually needs their expertise.
Where does human judgement come in?
Finding information and deciding what that information means are two very different things.
A piece of information within a medical record might be relevant, but understanding its significance can require clinical knowledge, legal expertise and an understanding of the wider case. Context matters.
AI does not replace the experience of a solicitor assessing the merits of a claim, or the expertise of a clinician considering whether the care provided was appropriate. It can make the information they need easier to access.
What about AI getting things wrong?
AI systems can produce incorrect information, sometimes referred to as an AI ‘hallucination’, This is why it’s important to verify information generated by AI, particularly when it is being used as part of legal casework.
Users need to be able to check where information has come from.
This principle is central to Ask Alex, our AI assistant within MedBrief Insights.
When a user asks Alex a question about a case, the answer is supported by citations to the case documents. This means the user can go back to the original source, review the information and make their own assessment.
AI helps find the answer; the user remains in control of what they do with it. There is an important distinction between using AI to provide information and using AI to make a legal decision.
For example, technology might help a solicitor navigate thousands of pages of medical records and find when a particular symptom was first documented. But determining what that symptom means for the claim, whether it is clinically significant and how it should influence the direction of the case requires professional judgement.
The same principle applies across the case. AI can help teams get to the relevant information more efficiently, but the judgement that follows remains with them.
AI in legal work
The question shouldn’t be whether AI will replace human judgement, but how it can support it. Used responsibly, AI can reduce the amount of time legal teams spend searching for information and carrying out repetitive tasks.
That creates more time for the parts of the job technology can’t replace: understanding context, applying experience, considering nuance and making informed decisions.
At MedBrief, that’s how we approach AI. We build technology to support legal and clinical professionals, giving them quicker access to the information they need while keeping them in control of the decisions that matter.