Since its emergence, Artificial Intelligence has gained a reputation of being more of a ‘threat’ than a tool capable of being harnessed for use. This ‘threat’ seemed far removed from the legal profession in Kenya. That is no longer the same with the launch of M-Wakili. M-Wakili is a Kenyan legal AI Chatbot that describes itself as a tool for lawyers, law students, and the public. It boasts of providing exhaustive and concise solutions to legal issues. It is being touted as an apparatus that can help revolutionize legal services by making them more accessible. But does accessibility equal reliability? Can this chatbot be held accountable? This article aims to briefly assess some of the challenges of this self-dubbed A.I. lawyer in dispensing legal services.
Background
Traditionally, in order for a person to qualify as an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, they are required to obtain a four-year bachelor’s degree in law. Afterward, they undergo a two-year training at the Kenya School of Law, where they sit for the bar exams. Once they have passed the bar exams, they would then petition for admission to the Kenyan Bar. Following admission, every advocate who intends to practice law will have to obtain an annual license. Acquisition of this license is based on the requirement that advocates attend a certain number of continuous professional training courses each year and earn enough points to be eligible for obtaining a practicing certificate in the following year.
Additionally, there are a set of rules that govern legal practice. These rules aim to protect the interests of the legal profession, promote public confidence, and hold advocates accountable. For instance, if a client feels that an advocate has behaved in a manner that is not befitting of their profession while rendering a service, they are allowed to lodge a complaint with the Advocates Complaints Commission. The commission would then investigate the matter.
M-Wakili describes itself an AI lawyer providing ‘concise and exhaustive solutions to legal issues’ It goes on to assure its users through its FAQ portion of the website that the information it provides, is accurate and offers to refund money should any of its users find a model that is more accurate. It also indicates to the public that while it does provide accurate legal advice, human lawyers are still needed in certain situations ‘such as court representations and negotiations’
Reliability
Legal advice is one of the key tenets of the services provided by a lawyer. It is based on such advice that a client decides whether to take a certain course of action, depending on their circumstances. Therefore, while M-Wakili may refer a layman to the relevant provisions of the law and/or case law, it is important to note that issues are rarely identical and may not always necessitate a legal solution. These are nuances that real human lawyers are able to appreciate and provide appropriate advice that is tailored to the specific set of circumstances. As such the ‘solution’ that this Chatbot boasts may not be reliable particularly for a lay person counting on it to help it solve its problems.
Accountability
M-Wakili’s website indicates that their AI provides comprehensive legal solutions, excluding tasks that necessitate the involvement of human lawyers, such as court appearances and negotiations. By making such a claim, it presents itself as a lawyer capable of providing legal services, except for those two cases. Keeping in mind that when a member of the public uses this chatbot for purposes of legal assistance, they rely on the ‘expertise’ that M-Wakili has professed to have. Artificial Intelligence is not recognized as legal persons. It does not hold a practicing certificate, nor is it a member of the Law Society of Kenya, nor does it have any of the other qualifications that human advocates are required to have in order to offer professional legal services. This chatbot is pretending to be a licensed lawyer. And so, the question becomes in the event that a member of the public feels aggrieved by the ‘legal solution’ given by M-Wakili can it be held accountable? Certainly not. While masquerading is a criminal offense under the Advocates Act, it is difficult to pursue legal action against an unrecognised legal entity. Charging an AI with an offence and prosecuting it will prove to be a challenging task.
Conclusion
While these are just some of the issues to consider when using this particular AI Chatbot, it is important that the laws governing legal profession in Kenya be updated to reflect the current state of technological advancement. It is equally important that as we find ways to regulate the development and use of Artificial Intelligence, we are careful not to stifle innovation within the country. While M-Wakili is indeed capable of revolutionizing the way in which legal services are offered, it is important to keep in mind that it is not a lawyer and it is not recognized by the Law Society as one. The public should exercise caution when using this self-proclaimed AI Lawyer to seek legal assistance in resolving their problems.
Disclaimer: This blog article is purely meant for educational discussion of legal products and issues. It contains only general information about legal matters. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as such.
You must not rely on the information on this website as an alternative to legal advice from your advocate/lawyer or other professional legal services provider. If you have any specific questions about any legal matter you should consult your advocate/lawyer or other professional legal services provider.