Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

(A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.01864 v2 pith:JSRPERV7 submitted 2024-02-02 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords legaladviceexpertsllmsqueriesuserscase-basedconcerns
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of providing users with advice in a wide range of professional domains, including legal advice. However, relying on LLMs for legal queries raises concerns due to the significant expertise required and the potential real-world consequences of the advice. To explore \textit{when} and \textit{why} LLMs should or should not provide advice to users, we conducted workshops with 20 legal experts using methods inspired by case-based reasoning. The provided realistic queries ("cases") allowed experts to examine granular, situation-specific concerns and overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a concrete set of contextual considerations for LLM developers. By synthesizing the factors that impacted LLM response appropriateness, we present a 4-dimension framework: (1) User attributes and behaviors, (2) Nature of queries, (3) AI capabilities, and (4) Social impacts. We share experts' recommendations for LLM response strategies, which center around helping users identify `right questions to ask' and relevant information rather than providing definitive legal judgments. Our findings reveal novel legal considerations, such as unauthorized practice of law, confidentiality, and liability for inaccurate advice, that have been overlooked in the literature. The case-based deliberation method enabled us to elicit fine-grained, practice-informed insights that surpass those from de-contextualized surveys or speculative principles. These findings underscore the applicability of our method for translating domain-specific professional knowledge and practices into policies that can guide LLM behavior in a more responsible direction.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ELI-Why: Evaluating the Pedagogical Utility of Language Model Explanations

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ELI-Why shows GPT-4's grade-tailored explanations often miss the intended educational level and are less informative than human-curated explanations.

Pith tools