The Honourable Chris Kourakis, Chief Justice of South Australia, speech at the Law Society of South Australia office re-launch on Monday, 8 April 2024

“I acknowledge that we meet on the land of the Kaurna people and pay my respect to Kaurna elders past, present and future.

Nothing is more satisfying or challenging than a career in the law because no pursuit is more noble than to provide our society with the closest approximation possible to what its members most value, justice.

The opening of these offices, designed as it is, for the contemporary needs of the Law Society and its members, comes at a fitting time.  Change is one of the great constants of this world, but the rate of change itself changes.  Developed economies around the world are on the cusp of another exponential increase in the rate of change.

To address those changes all institutions must evaluate why, how, when and, most importantly, to what end, they do what they do.

The great disruptor at our gates of which I speak is, of course, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and generative AI in particular.

From the day I took office as Chief Justice, I advocated for an electronic court management system.  In retrospect, it is fortunate that the Labor government of the time did not deliver on bricks and mortar it had promised but backed the Courts Administration Authority to deliver the Electronic Court Management System (ECMS).  South Australia has the most technologically advanced electronic filing and court management system in the nation.  It is also the most advanced in its breadth encompassing the criminal and civil jurisdictions of all three courts of general jurisdiction.  Nevertheless, we still expect delivery on the promise of a contemporary fit for purpose court building – there has been no waiver or election.

Our fully electronic data base is a necessary pre-requisite to the application of AI for case management purposes, for deciding resource allocation and for reforming our processes and procedures.

Legal professional bodies must also test whether they are institutionally fit for the purpose of meeting the challenge of AI.  The regulation of the profession too must be subjected to a rigorous examination of fitness for purpose.

Let me list some of the challenges.

First, as to the provision of legal advice:

  • will conduct rules regulate the extent to which practitioners can rely on generative AI to give legal advice;
  • what are the insurance implications of its use – will insurers cover AI’s mistakes and hallucinations;
  • should generative AI systems be permitted to give legal advice even if covered by a warning that it is ‘general in nature’;

In respect of litigation, the personal duty of practitioners to the Court cannot be outsourced.  When it comes to evidence in court, the use of AI to summarise information to be included in affidavits will give no immunity from the consequences of pledging a false oath, and in submissions and lists of documents, AI hallucinations will not excuse practitioners from breach of their ethical obligations.  But questions remain;

  • are the profession’s investigative and disciplinary arms up to the job of discovery and dealing with breaches of ethical standards and conduct rules by the undisclosed use of AI?
  • and what of equality of arms – should AI litigation tools be equally available to both parties and who will pay for that use?

There are also access to justice challenges:

  • will AI in the provision of legal research be the exclusive domain of the top tier alone?
  • AI might offer opportunities to enhance access to justice by providing cost effective resolution of lower end claims but is the profession trained to engage with AI to achieve that objective, can its practices and firm structures rise to the challenge.

Finally I wish to make some observations about continuing professional development in this new era.  The provision of continuing professional development courses must be much more than the commercial exploitation of the captive market created by the mandatory of Continuing Professional Development (CPD).  Education and training is all the more critical in an era of accelerating charging.  We must ask whether the courses provided by the Law Society and other providers are up to the gold standard, are they the best practices in andragogy applied?  Are lectures and seminars really fit for purpose for instilling new skills or is a more interactive hands-on approach needed?

Should there not be a national curriculum setting out the professional standards, attributes and competencies of a contempory Australian legal practitioner?   Should there not be a curriculum which informs the legal practitioners as to the selection of courses which will deliver what he or she needs as career milestones are reached.

As inconvenient as it was, the renovation of this building was relatively easy.  The challenges which those who sit in them will face will be much more difficult.  In opening these renovated offices, I wish the Society and its members much strength and success in meeting them.”