Transcript:
speaker-0 (00:01.42)
Repetition is how you build muscle. The people that are the best at presenting a case to a jury, the people that are the best at taking depositions of witnesses who don't want to tell them information and keep it to themselves, the people who are best at finding those pieces of information, at accurately communicating their point to a jury, are the people who've just been doing it a lot over and over again. It's really trial by fire, right?
The nice thing about what AI can provide is it can provide some of those simulated experiences at an earlier stage.
speaker-2 (00:40.078)
This is Real Cases, a legal podcast presented by the Stetson University College of Law. We'll sit down with Stetson Law faculty and students to examine today's critical cases and debates in environmental, international, elder, and business law, plus the role of social justice in these fields. Join us as we open the case file. Episode 42: Trial by Algorithm: How AI-powered trial prep is shaping a new generation of advocates. I'm Daniel O'Keefe, Master of English Literature from
Indiana University. Today we're joined by Professor Katherine Donoghue, the Director of Stetson's Trial Team and Trial Advocacy Program, and Carson Sedro, Associate Director of the Center for Advocacy Education. I asked them to start by introducing themselves.
speaker-1 (01:24.974)
My name is Kate Donoghue. I am a professor here at Stetson and I'm also the director of trial advocacy and our trial team. I graduated from Fordham Law School in 2010. I practiced law for 10 years, four years in private practice, doing complex commercial litigation for about two years. And then I switched to the public interest sector where I was representing abuse and neglected children at a nonprofit law firm in Connecticut.
And then I joined the state's attorney's office in Connecticut and I was a prosecutor for six years in as an assistant states attorney for the state of Connecticut for their division of criminal justice. And my husband's job relocated us to Florida right before the pandemic. during my time in practice, I was also an adjunct professor of trial advocacy at Fordham Law School.
But right before the pandemic, my husband's job brought us to Florida. With that brought some change, but all positive. I worked for just about two years as a professor of legal studies at Kaiser University. I worked in the Tampa campus as a full-time professor of legal studies, teaching students working toward either their associates or their bachelor's degree in legal studies. I was there for just about two years, and then I joined Stetson Law School. I started as the associate director of advocacy.
I then became the basically what I am now, a practitioner in residence, a faculty appointment as the I've directed the LLM, the advocacy LLM. I've also now directing trial advocacy and our trial team. And I will be starting on the tenure track in the fall as an assistant professor of law. So I've been out of law school 16 years now with a varied experience in practice as well as in higher education.
speaker-0 (03:11.374)
I'm Carson Sadro. I do not have 16 years of practice like Kate doesn't I Kate and I kind of walked the reverse path of our practical experience. So I am, I guess I'll back up. I'm the associate director of the advocacy center here at Stetson. and I teach some of our trial advocacy courses and serve as one of the coaches for our trial team.
I went to law school at the University of South Carolina, where I competed during all of my time there. I would receive my undergraduate degree from the University of South Florida here in Tampa. Came back just recently, a few years ago. After I graduated law school, I actually went to Jacksonville to become a prosecutor. I worked in the community problem response unit, which was focused on
gang-related violence or firearms crimes. After I left the prosecutor's office there, I came back to Tampa and then started working in complex commercial litigation for a small firm here. So Kate and I really did have the flip experience. but when I moved back to Tampa, I started coaching for mock trilogon pretty quickly. And about a year, year and a half ago, this position opened up because Kate was going up in the world too. So she very fortunately for me left the spot open
and I really jumped at the chance to come and work for Stetson. So really happy to be here and have a chit chat about some of the things that we do.
speaker-2 (04:44.802)
So just to start with the basics, what's the difference between mock trial as opposed to a debate team?
speaker-0 (04:52.18)
Mock trial really operates like a simulation of a shortened trial period. So it gives students the opportunity to engage in very real-world practical situations. So students receive a case file full with witness depositions, pieces of evidence, stipulations of the parties, and build you up to be able to also practice motions before what will ultimately be the judge presiding over a round.
in the round, the students get to practice a shorter version of a trial. They do an opening statement where they tell the jury what their case is about, why they think they're right, and how they're gonna prove that they're right. and then they get to start calling witnesses. They direct witnesses on their side, meaning that they ask friendly witnesses questions that help establish their case theory. and then they cross-examine opposing witnesses trying to attack and break down their testimony.
And then they go to closing argument, just like you would in the real world, recapping all of the evidence and testimony that they heard. So mock trial is kind of special and unique apart from debate in that way. Or if they're seeing a debate program or any other kind of advocacy-related program at the undergraduate level, this takes it a step further. It gives you closer to a real world simulation. And certainly in debate, you're not dealing with live witnesses, you're not learning how to adapt and respond on the fly.
so that you're prepared for the very real world possibilities that you are not gonna know what a witness says when they take the stand. so mock trial's really good at bridging the gap between those initial introductory public speaking skills into a very active litigation practice.
speaker-2 (06:35.894)
And is that part part of the the purpose of it also, like you said, is to offer in condensed form something that more closely follows the particular rules that you would find in a in a courtroom?
speaker-0 (06:49.088)
Absolutely. the particular rules change from competition to competition, but fundamentally operate the same. They all mostly rely on the federal rules of evidence that students are going to be using when they go into practice to make evidentiary arguments before the court. They're going to be using general premises, something like we call the golden rule, right? Never ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of a victim.
these real world things that they're gonna have to learn how to do in practice. And the really nice thing is while we call it a simulation, sometimes we joke that it's a fake world. and it is there, the the facts are are made up and the points aren't real for the real world. You walk into practice not being afraid to do those things. because you've done them before, over and over and over. And it really gives you a leg up on your colleagues as far as being comfortable speaking to a court and knowing.
how to talk to a judge, how to talk to a jury, how to interact with a witness. And so that level of preparation is what we do. And we have a little bit of fun along the way. It's a lot of fun.
speaker-2 (07:55.778)
Do a lot of students who are coming to Stetson who are interested specifically in the trial advocacy program, do they often come with a background already in mock trial from their undergraduate experience? Or is this frequently something new for them when they get to law school?
speaker-0 (08:12.096)
It varies. So some people do come in with mock trial or moot court or some other similar experience like debate when they come into law school, but a lot of them don't. The undergraduate mock trial landscape is growing and expanding. I always encourage students to take part in it to start getting their feet wet. but it doesn't preclude anybody or stop them from making a trial team.
We really value being able to teach foundational skills, no matter what starting point you begin at. So everybody's going to learn the same foundational skills, whether or not you've been doing those activities an undergraduate before coming into law school. Really, what we're looking for, what we want always everyone to be, is to walk in, being comfortable being themselves, being able to stand up and talk to a jury or or people, right? And then we teach you how to do it.
functionally, how to do it substantively, how to craft arguments in a really persuasive and meaningful way.
speaker-1 (09:12.056)
I think something that is also very unique and special about Stetson in particular is that we our advocacy program is outstanding, not just in trial advocacy, but also in our dispute resolution program. Think mediation, arbitration, negotiation, client counseling, client interviewing, all of those really important lawyering skills. As well as our MOOC court program is outstanding, which is think of that as
The other side of trial is your appellate brief and oral argument to an appellate bench of three judges, sometimes more if maybe they're sitting on bunk, right? And so what's really great about Stetson's curriculum is that students who come to Stetson, they may not have a ton of experience doing undergrad mock trial, for example, but maybe they have experience doing
Other things that are translatable to different types of advocacy skills at the law school level. And Stetson really offers an opportunity for students to really broaden their horizons and practice their skills and develop their skills across all of these areas of litigation. And they really are all transferable at the end of the day. You are learning how to.
Read people, read a room, read a judge, opposing counsel, a witness. No matter where you are at this stage of litigation, you also learn how to think critically and analyze facts and evidence before you, issue spot, which are is again translatable to tons of different things you do in your life, not just professionally, but just navigating the world that we live in. And that's something that's really special and unique to Stetson. So it's not just
Trial advocacy, of course, is wonderful, but and great, but we also offer so many other aspects that really students can really do anything they kind of set their mind to or might be interested in that they can really use to further their career.
speaker-2 (11:20.334)
Could you give me a broad overview of all the different component parts that comprise Stetson's advocacy program?
speaker-1 (11:27.406)
Person and I, and as well as many other wonderful colleagues that we work with, run our Center for Advocacy Education. And under that really massive umbrella falls a variety of different programs and different aspects of the curriculum that enable a student to develop their advocacy skills. So break it down to a couple of different things. We have
A, you know, think of it as advocacy is effectively advocating for someone else or someone's position, right? What you do as a lawyer. When we think of advocacy, we think of it a little bit more in kind of like your client representation context. And that can range the full gamut from just meeting an initial client when something has happened and gone wrong, and we need a lawyer to enter the picture.
It doesn't mean we're necessarily at trial yet. And quite frankly, it may never get to trial. So under our umbrella of the Center for Advocacy Education is dispute resolution and programs and classes and competitive teams that teach students how to interview clients, counsel clients, negotiate with opposing counsel, engage in a mediation, perhaps engage in an arbitration as well.
Then we have kind of that middle stage, which is where you hit your trial, right? And trial advocacy is similar to what Carson was talking about earlier, where you're really simulating this mock jury trial, starting with exactly what she said. you know, your kind of pretrial matters, early on, kind of preliminary matters, housekeeping procedure in the courtroom, followed by motions and lemine, basically arguing complex legal issues.
Decide think of it kind of as setting the table for what's going to end up coming in at trial on some complex evidentiary issues. And then you try the case to your jury, exactly like Carson said, presenting that opening statement, then about what the case is about and how you're going to prove it. And then calling the witnesses and introducing evidence to prove it, cross-examine of the cross-examination of those witnesses. That's our adversarial system. And then wrapping it all up with closing arguments, arguing to the jury.
speaker-1 (13:45.378)
Hey, you just heard all this, and here's what it all means when you apply it to the law that the judge is going to instruct you on. Then we have kind of this final stage is when things inevitably happen at trial, well, we have this appellate process. And that is our whole moot court advocacy. And that is when students through all of their professors, again, there are courses, there are competition teams that all teach these different skills.
And on the Moot Court side, students analyze really precise legal issues that have been raised at the trial level. They could be constitutional, they could be evidentiary, they could be statutory, a variety of different legal issues. They write briefs on those legal issues, and then they argue, engage in oral argument on those legal issues to an appellate bench. And then within what we do, right, we have all the curriculum, we have the competitive teams.
We have what are called concentrations, which are the easiest way to think about it is like a law school major where you can focus your courses on social justice advocacy. Maybe it's business law. We have an environmental and environmental advocacy and democracy advocacy clinic. We have a variety of different topics that you can kind of focus your legal studies on in these areas, as well as I mean, Stetson offers.
more than 60 approximately clinics and externships where students get to go and get their hands, you know, hands-on experience in the real world, applying all of these skills that they've learned in their upper level classes. And you know, you can really get involved in all this stuff in your two L year. So your one L year, right? You come into law school, you're taking all your required classes, contracts, torts, property, constitutional law, criminal law, legal research and writing one, legal research and writing two.
And then kind of as you go into your second year of law school, what we have from through the Center of Advocacy Education in conjunction with all of our clinics and externships office, we create this kind of learning environment where students can, if they are interested in advocacy, which is really that broad range of client representation at all of those different stages. After you know, effectively an incident has happened and someone needs help and that lawyer stepping in.
speaker-1 (16:04.584)
they can learn all of those skills in a variety of different ways. And we provide those resources as well as, you know, obviously working in conjunction with other departments and all of our faculty on campus.
speaker-2 (16:16.6)
So let's transition to talking a little bit about AI and how AI is starting to factor into the practice of advocacy and into advocacy education as well. so Kate, I know that you teach a class on jury selection, and I'd like to hear a little bit about how AI is starting to factor into that process.
speaker-1 (16:41.166)
Sure, absolutely. So the way that I have in, I'll speak on my behalf of what I have incorporated and used in my class. So something that I encourage my students to do as a way of utilizing a free but also really helpful AI tool is so I structure my class to give you a little background. I structure my class as the initial few classes are a bit of a lecture, kind of talking the students through.
what jury selection is, how to be effective doing it, what the goals of jury selection are, the different sixteen personalities that we have as human beings and how that impact can impact decision making and processing of information. It's very much there's very a lot of psychology that goes into jury selection as
speaker-2 (17:25.566)
Kind Myers Briggs does it.
speaker-1 (17:27.67)
Or okay. 16 personalities. Absolutely. So the beginning of my class kind of just is kind of given the fundamentals, right? How to do this, because what this is not is just some kind of, you know, exercise and just go with your gut, get a good feel and pick. That's not the case at all. And then the rest of my class is structured as active simulations where students are assigned to either be the questioning attorney, the co-counsel, or a mock juror.
speaker-0 (17:28.558)
Okay.
speaker-1 (17:53.588)
So they are taking on a personality, a confidential personality that I have given them. And they get to experience getting questioned in the box so they can see it from both sides. And to prepare for that questioning analysis that they need to do, what I something I tell them to do with respect to AI is all right, you get your mocked fact, mock fact pattern, you get your juror questionnaires, just like you would right before child. Using those that information, come up with your
Question outlines, identify what are the most important max three. Don't have a ton of time to do jury selection in the real world. figure out what are your key issues, what is your case live and die on, right? And how are you going to explore those without what is called pre-trying the case? And if and come up with your questions, the types of questions you're gonna ask, and then of course any topical ideas for follow-up, because you never know what people will say. And then take your outline, take your questions.
And plug it into this really great app called Notebook LM. It's totally free. it's a it's a Google application. And you can plug it in. And what you can do is Notebook LM has all these different options, but one of them is that it can create a podcast. It's called an audio overview. And the podcast, if you upload it to it and you say, Hey, tell me what this case is about based on these questions that are being presented, and you can see what the podcast interviewers start talking about.
And if they are actually and accurately identifying the legal issues in your case, the pivotal things that you really need to explore juror opinions on in order to find and ensure you're getting a fair and impartial jury and/or find biases to be able to remove those jurors, either for cause or on a peremptory strike. If the podcast, the AI, is accurately identifying those things, amazing that's signaling should be signaling to you you're on the right track.
If they're not, if they're talking about things that are maybe too vague or really not on point, ooh, maybe we need to tailor our questions a little bit more directly and be more precise in what we are asking in our questions or you know, our proposed questions and our our outline that we plan our plan of attack basically. another thing that I have used AI for in my jury selection class is the I've had of two things. One, I've had practitioners come in and kind of give
speaker-1 (20:19.816)
a little overview of how what they do in their jury selection processes, but also how they've used AI. So for example, some practitioners have kind of a live AI that they're using. It's proprietary information. So not going to go too much into it, but what they can do is, you know, type in juror demographic information that they get off a questionnaire. They can type in some answers that jurors might be giving as it's happening. Some of the advanced AI stuff can actually do it kind of live through the transcript as it's hearing it.
and it can start to predict how those jurors might lean, right? so my students have heard about that. I've also, for me, incorporating the students' learning aspect, I've also worked with a software developer who is, again, a little bit of proprietary information. So, not gonna go too much into it, but this software developer is effectively working on a program that can work on or help lawyers practice and identify.
particular like juror basically predict juror verdicts based on to get a mock fact pattern you get about 50 juror profiles those jurors have been asked questions and given answers already you can engage with the bot assuming it's pretending to be say juror number one where you can see all their questions and answers if you want to ask follow-up questions of of that juror who is the bot you can to get more information and then you can predict at the end
which side they're gonna vote for based on the fact pattern that you read when you logged in. And my students, I have my students do it and see where they landed on their success, of, you know, were they right or wrong in their predictions? And and what additional information would you have wanted to ask? What additional questions did you ask? What did you think was missing? Things like that. And so it can really practice their skills in addition to
you know, attempting to predict how these people are going to find.
speaker-2 (22:15.366)
That's that's really fascinating. And I find I find this particular application of AI in order to create simulated personas for the sake of questioning and f you know, finding out information about the persona for predictive purposes. I just think that's really fascinating. And I think that's a a a f a facet of AI that I think some people might have a little bit of familiarity with, but that does not come quickly to mind for a lot of people when they think about how A
These sorts of models are being used.
speaker-1 (22:45.748)
Right. And one thing I will add is that actually with the that last juror verdict prediction tool that I mentioned. So that was actually done. Those were actually real people and real responses. They created, you know, a basically like a jury pool. They put out like a massive survey where people responded to it. And they actually, those were real people, real demographics of those people with real responses. And it was all input into the AI,
program. I'm using simple terms also because I'm not a total pro at this, but the and then those personas, the the bot had all of that information. So it was effectively a closed universe where the bot you were talking to really was mimicking a real person. And so if the bot didn't have more information to give, it really wouldn't. And the good thing was is that it was trained programmatically not to make it up so that it stayed consistent because that can sometimes be a real problem.
but there are training tools out there that do have the AI program generate the personas. and so that can be done as well. But I just wanted to say that the one that I was particularly using was based on real people.
speaker-2 (23:59.534)
And I I could imagine that both of them would have their their uses, right? If you're trying to do something that's based very rigorously on, no, let's go only off of the information that we have, that's one thing. But I imagine in some of these sorts of Q<unk>A scenarios that you're describing, that it actually might be helpful in some cases to have the the AI model actually start pulling from its own independent research or ideas about what someone might say.
Because you're gonna be in a situation where someone might say something that's totally unexpected or that doesn't fit with the you know, what you already know about them. Carson, could you talk a little bit about the work you've done with the American Arbitration Association?
speaker-1 (24:36.654)
Absolutely.
speaker-0 (24:42.644)
Yeah, absolutely. One of the things we talk about all the time with our students, with one of our teams at Stetson is that repetition is how you build a muscle. There is no, there's no secret. there's no special formula that people can't figure out to learn how to do this activity. But the people that are the best at presenting a case to a jury, the people that are the best at
Taking depositions of witnesses who don't want to tell them information and keep it to themselves. The people who are best at finding those pieces of information at accurately communicating their point to a jury are the people who've just been doing it a lot, over and over and over again. It's really trial by fire, right? The nice thing about what AI can provide is it can provide some of those simulated experiences at an earlier stage, right?
So you get to test some of those quirks that you might have your first time taking a deposition or the first time you stand up in a jury, like Kate was talking about. So, what we did with the American Arbitration Association was to help craft a course. It's a three-week course online where young litigators can come and learn how to engage effectively in an arbitration. So the American Arbitration Association did a lot of really great.
videos on how to systematically approach an arbitration, what it even foundationally, what it looks like, how to break it down, how to engage with an arbitrator, how to prepare for a hearing. because arbitration's kind of something that young litigators are don't always get exposed to at a young age. and then they might be tasked with walking in and giving an opening statement to an arbitrator for the first time.
Or taking a taking a statement from a witness for the first time. So what we wanted to do in that course is not just tell students, young litigators in this case, how to do an arbitration, but to give them an opportunity to engage in one. So we actually built a chatbot for that purpose. What we did is created a simulation where students could direct and cross-examine.
speaker-0 (27:04.834)
Witnesses in a very in a case file that we've provided for them. So we took a case file from you know, an old case for one of our dispute resolution cases that we would have used to train students here at Stetson, used that case in this course with the American Arbitration Arbitration Association, have the students process it. And when I say students, I mean young litigators. This course is built for those that are already in practice or very new to practice.
they can take that case file. We're gonna teach them how to break it down. so part of that before we even got to the chat bot was taking what we know how to do at the advocacy center, telling people how to most effectively communicate a case. So you have myself and other Stetson faculty members helping these students learn how to give an opening statement, how to direct, how to cross, how to give a closing argument and putting those things into practice then.
With a chat bot for directing cross-examination. So the chat bot is designed to respond like a witness otherwise would in an arbitration. So if you're directing a witness and your question isn't clear, the witness is going to say, I don't know, or I don't know how to answer that question. I can you rephrase that? And that is teaching the young litigator in this program,
I've just given this witness a really broad question or something that sounds confusing. I need to learn how to rephrase what I've just said. The point of that is that you're practicing that in a simulation now and not when you're actually representing a client in an arbitration. And what's happening is what we do with that simulation is you print out the question and answers, and you can do it as many times as you want. The chatbot remains open to you.
And then you get to turn in that transcript to one of our faculty members here at Stetson who are going to review the transcript, walk through it with you, provide you human feedback on what you were doing in the AI simulation so that you're still getting that human component from a Stetson advocacy faculty member who knows how to engage in those skill sets. So we've we've just started that. We just did our beta test run.
speaker-0 (29:24.606)
we just walked through our first course completion of the American Arbitration Association course that we're doing with them. and we're gonna keep offering it. we anticipate offering it again in the fall. So I really encourage you know, young litigators, but also I I know this is a a younger crowd even then too, but that we're that we're talking about. but the cool thing about it is I think it shows you how much step stats in.
Advocacy center is dedicated to getting people ready to walk into litigation, right? Getting them to practice these skills and providing resources to do that even after they might graduate out of our advocacy center. They're in the advocacy concentration. and then they go out into the world, we're gonna that's an additional resource for you to keep practicing the skill. It doesn't just end when you leave here.
speaker-2 (30:17.326)
I think that's a great point that you bring up also too about just the sh the sheer importance of practice when it comes to these things. Cause I think, you know, this is true of all sorts of things in the world, but I would imagine that there's especially when it comes to public speaking, that there are lots of ways in which people imagine that it's just like you have it or you don't. It's like this kind of you got the you got the magic, you got the charisma.
Or you don't have it, right? And that this is very much about no, this is actually a developable skill. This is something that you learn. This is something that you have to gain through just sheer experience, how to apply this, how to think on your feet, how to do all of these things.
speaker-0 (30:57.566)
I'm actually a case study in that. If if any of any undergraduate listeners want to feel better about not walking in with some kind of perfect experience that they've imagined in their head before they get to law school, I started doing mock trial in high school. And sometimes people are like, my gosh, you've been doing mock trial for so long. And what I remind people is that when I tried out for mock trial in high school, I didn't make the team as a participant in the trial. That made me mad.
But mad in a really productive way. And so I watched and I learned. I watched how people moved their faces to convey an expression or emotion. I watched how people moved through a courtroom, how they were phrasing things, how they could attack an opposing witness. And it was just by watching those people, watching other and even watching video examples from really important competitions like Top Gun, where I could.
watch a skill set and learn how to do it. So this is a learned skill. You can come in and everyone is going to learn how to show up as themselves in a different way, but we're here to help teach you how to do that effectively in a course.
speaker-1 (32:12.994)
One of the things that we do and use AI for on our trial team in particular is practicing a variety of different skills. And those skills are things that are raw and necessary to effective practice of law. And Carson alluded to them a little bit earlier, but it is not being worried about the script of the exact questions you need to ask and also not being afraid of the objections that you may get.
when you are questioning a witness or when you're doing something in the courtroom. I think that is one of the biggest fears that young attorneys have is gosh, like I gotta go off the script. What's gonna happen? And gosh, I'm gonna get an objection that I don't know what to say in response to. So to alleviate some of those concerns for my trial team students, I built some custom GPTs using Chat GPT. And they're relatively simple, but they're they're two different ones. One is called a courtroom examination coach and
It allows the student to go into the tool and it can it can they can do a direct examination or they can do a cross examination. And when they go to get started, it'll ask them four questions. It'll basically ask what side do you want to represent? Do you want to be the plaintiff or the defendant, or do you want to be the prosecutor or the defendant? It'll then ask you civil or criminal case. It'll then ask you what type of witness you want to examine. And it could be a party to the case, a corporate representative, eyewitness, law enforcement officer, forensic investigator.
treating physician, an expert witness of some kind, and you can give it the parameters or something else. You can just tell it whatever you want that you want to particularly practice. And then it you can also give it a difficulty level, beginner, intermediate, or advanced. And then what it will do is once you give it that information, it will prov the tool will provide the student with a concise case summary.
And a procedural posture. So basically it'll give a detailed witness background, a CV or credentials if applicable, the key, it could be if it's a cross-examination, it'll give you the key direct examination testimony so that you know what to cross on. Any impeachment material if necessary on a cross-examination, or just more background story if it's a direct, it'll give your side's key theory of the case. And this is the tool just generating this stuff from scratch for for the student.
speaker-1 (34:35.009)
So the student just kind of gets this information on the fly. It's relatively short, but it's enough for them to do an examination of a witness. And then they can practice doing either a direct examination or a cross examination based on that fact pattern. The tool plays the witness in responding. The tool will also object here and there, and you have to respond to it. And then at the end, the tool gives them feedback on how they did, all based on.
information that I train my students on, my material, my uploaded material. So it's a closed universe. And it allows the students to get comfortable just having conversational direct examinations or practicing just asking clear, concise questions on cross, one fact per question to really nail the witness down without worrying about whatever their pre-planned script was, because they didn't have one. They can't have
And then my other tool that I created to help with the responding to objections is actually called respond to the objection. And what the student can do is upload into it either their own rough outline of their examination or and/or the witness statement from the particular packet of the witness they're examining. And they're asking the tool to play that witness. And then they are practicing their examination with the witness as the tool.
But the tool is also playing the opposing attorney and the judge, and it's just peppering them with objections as they go. And they don't know what's coming. Those objections may be correct. Those objections may be totally wrong, but they need to provide a clear, concise response. And I've set the parameters where they have to respond in less than four sentences. Because something that I've found is students sometimes they want to explain too much on an objection response, and the judge doesn't want to hear it. And so
learning how to be concise, as concise as possible. And so I cap it at four sentences. And what's really nice about this is using chat GPT, the students go into this. They have the link just to my training module and they can go into what's called voice mode. And like they can just do it back and forth with with the bot and practice speaking. Or they can they can also type it out. they can do it in the the more kind of traditional typing way. Either one, it's really up to them.
speaker-1 (36:57.266)
but I I encourage them to do it just as much as possible. I really encourage them to do the voice mode so that they can just practice speaking and also keeping their cool when the bot starts to annoy them. that they they keep their cool because sometimes opposing counsel might start to annoy you in court and you can't show that, right? You need to always be professional. So those are just two uses of AI that I have created for our trial team in particular to help develop the.
the most necessary skills that they have all expressed that they wanna work on. And yeah, it's it's going well so far. And I'll tweak it, you know, accordingly going forward and we'll try some new stuff as well.
speaker-2 (37:36.704)
That's really fascinating. So shifting gears a bit, as state and federal courts are starting to introduce new regulations about the use of AI and about transparency surrounding that use in practice, could you talk a little bit about how you're training students to think about that in a more rigorous sort of way?
speaker-1 (37:56.568)
So I lived kind of the technology revolution. So, in the sense of I was born in the early 80s. So for me, I lived this whole thing, I didn't have the internet growing up. And then all of a sudden I had the internet and how and the development and kind and growth of the internet. And so I remember to a degree, right? The panic of like, what is this new?
New thing? Is it going to change the world? What the heck is this? It's taking over. And so for me, I very much see AI and the in the development there very similarly in that it is a technological revolution, a massive change. But I think that, you know, with change can come apprehension about how this works.
What is it going to be used to do? I absolutely understand concern about potential job loss, right? And certain professions where AI might start replacing certain jobs. I get that. And I think that's a really real concern. And I I'm I understand and I think those are valid concerns to a degree. I also am
very realistic and recognize that the these AI data centers and the impact on the environment, I think is also very real. And I recognize that as well. that said, I'm not, I don't think that those concerns, while completely valid and I I get it, I don't think that's gonna stop this. I think this train is on those tracks and it is gonna keep going. And similar to that the internet revolution,
the dot-com development that that I lived back in the you know late 90s, early 2000s. And so for me, I think where it is is this is coming. And I think what we, and I'll keep it to just the the legal profession, right? Cause this is where I, you know, this is my bailiwick. I believe that we as lawyers and we as teachers, professors can can look at this technology.
speaker-1 (40:07.628)
work hard to understand it and how we can use it to our benefit and become a master of the tool and how we use the tool and apply the tool in a way to help us and make us more efficient and better understand things and better train our students and train ourselves. but I do not believe and at least not right now, I'm very confident that I don't believe that AI is going to replace lawyers in the courtroom or just in general.
Because there is a level of human connectivity, judgment, reading of people that I don't think yet the computer bot can truly do. Now, maybe I will be proven wrong in a decade or in 10 months. I don't know. 10 years or 10 months. But so, you know, for example, right? I think about my jury selection class, right? And I could have those a I could have an AI bot sitting right next to me at council table and all the information.
the words that are being said in that courtroom, the demographics from a juror questionnaire put into AI, right? And that bot will analyze it and spit it out based on my facts of the case and tell me where that person might be leaning, right? Where they predict their verdict would be. But what I can do is I can look at that person. I can look that person in the eye. Part of effective jury selection is reading those little audio and visual cues as someone shifting in their seat or they wringing their hands.
those little microaggressions, does their words not match their tone, right? There's all these different human interaction and human persuasion techniques that you can use as a and really master and hone as a lawyer. That right now, you know, that bot sitting next to me can't do what I can do. Is it helpful to me? Absolutely. Can it crunch that data faster than I can? Absolutely.
But something I train my students to do is, you know, you're never looking down in jury selection. You shouldn't even have that pad in front of you. You shouldn't even have a pen in your hand. You shouldn't even be behind a podium. You need to be up there having a genuine, honest conversation with these people because they have to trust you and believe you and like you in order to, if you end the hand up on your jury, them finding in your favor. That is absolutely a factor that comes that plays into it. And you
speaker-1 (42:35.21)
And the AI bot can't do that. You know, we can. And so that's just one small microcosm of an example. So that is my long answer to say, I think I've lived these kind of scary revolutions, at least one before. I believe in that we will persevere. I maybe I'm a glass half full kind of girl, and I but I I don't want to be positive, but I think these are amazing tools.
that we can use to hone as long as we train ourselves properly and we use them properly, I believe they can be a real asset to f the future and in a way that we can really help our clients in our, you know, legal representation and then in turn our students as educators.
speaker-0 (43:22.932)
Yeah, I think what's really pretty spot on about what Kate is saying is that we've been through this before. And I and I don't necessarily mean myself or Kate or any one particular person listening, but I I mean as a people.
We have been through these types of revolutionary changes before, and not to sound like a really old professor, but think about the industrial revolution. That scared people, it terrified people. We were bringing in machines to replace human physical labor. but we learned how these things change all the time. you know, 10 years ago, lawyers were still dictating into
recorders for for young folks listening at home. that is where lawyers would genuinely speak into a recorder, putting all of their client notes in by audio recording. They would give that audio recording to their secretary. Their secretary would put a piece of paper in the typewriter that's not a computer and type out word for word what was said into a recorder. And when I entered the practice with law, thank God that was not
in operation anymore because it wouldn't drive me nuts. So technology can provide positive changes. and the law, just like he was saying, I agree, is really protected in a unique way, I think, and I hope. Unless, you know, one day we end up in that what's that old Tom Cruise movie? with Skynet, where they start predicting when crimes will happen and taking the
speaker-2 (45:04.11)
Minority report.
speaker-0 (45:05.974)
Yes.
speaker-2 (45:08.536)
Skynet is from Terminator, so you're you've got two different things going there.
speaker-0 (45:12.563)
Yeah. but yeah.
speaker-2 (45:15.47)
Now we're moving into my realm of expertise.
speaker-0 (45:18.574)
But you know, I think we're a long way away from any form of intelligence being able to replace that human ability to make a judgment call to a place where humans feel comfortable giving up that control over to a generate generative artificial intelligence system. Because we are the ones that have the ability not just to make judgment calls like Kate was saying, but to know when AI is wrong. To
learn the from a from a legal perspective, right? I have a lot of friends that are working now as senior partners and they have junior associates coming and bringing them work product that is entirely generated by AI and they can spot it in a second. Because when you take the time to learn the law, learn how to apply it.
Just like you had to learn how to do a math equation before you were given the privilege of a calculator, you know how to break it down piece by piece so that you can identify when something doesn't look right. And I think there's gonna be what I would caution, you know, future law students against is I think there's gonna be a real inclination to let AI do the front loading of.
research, you know, for example, when they get into something like Westlaw, a big bank of case law, you can ask Westlaw these really big research questions, and it is awesome at producing a really thorough response. It's still it's still a machine. and there might be something, a word, a phrase that you know through your experience, through your training, through your education that needs to be incorporated in the search that Westlaw didn't
And so it's important for lawyers, future aspiring lawyers, to know how to do that work on the back end so that no matter where they are in law school or in practice, that they know how to tell AI that it's wrong and how to correct it in their own work. And that's the kind of judgment, too, that I don't think artificial intelligence is in a place to correct right now. And I'm hoping for the 10 years end of the 10 months versus 10 years.
speaker-0 (47:35.884)
That where we've got some time before we're able to appla replace real human judgment. And the law is one of those really insular places where we've got some time. and I and I'm hopeful that that never never changes because we do really important work as lawyers, like protecting people's rights. And that is a fundamentally human exercise that you need humans in place for. And so lawyers are unique in that way. And I I'm hopeful that
That will remain true.
speaker-1 (48:08.618)
Especially because too, I completely agree. And just one thing to add is, you know, the inter facts the law applies, but it it totally depends on the facts, right? So you have to interpret the law as applied to the facts of each particular case. And that requires human judgment and analysis and and independent knowledge. Cause remember, these AI tools are large language models, right? All they know is what already exists and what is out there. They are just
regurgitating and synthesizing information, but that already exists. And so, you know, what we need to do is when sure, the law out there may exist. And even if the tool spits it back as accurate, right? Not only do we need, I agree, to be able to in interpret it when it's wrong and tell it when it's wrong, but also even when it's right, the application to a particular client's case or not, or whether that case is on
Point and controlling our particular client's case or not requires that independent legal analysis that is in my mind. Because I know, and the equivalent of any attorney out there, I know my client's case and I know the best ins and outs and the arguments that I can make of how to interpret the law to apply it. And that's also what judges do, right? They interpret the law and its application and in a
particular case. And so, and we lawyers argue that to the judge. And so I think there's also that nuance to it that I believe will always require us. The tool will be there to assist, but we bring something very unique to the table in our legal training and analysis and just the sh independent kind of sheer nature of how legal analysis works in our common law system where cases develop over time.
based on precedent, but our law is consistently and constantly changing. So I would just have I would just add that.
speaker-0 (50:13.086)
And it's painful to be called out by a judge. my gosh. My gosh, do you not want to be the lawyer that's getting read the riot act at the podium? It happens it happened before AI. It happened to all of us. And it is not fun. And it is much worse if you bring them a case that doesn't exist. So there is a lot of work to be done on the human side of things in the practice of law.
speaker-2 (50:37.27)
I think that one of the things that really kind of marks sophisticated use and thoughtful use of AI, and it's the sort of thing that you've been that you've been talk both been talking about with the way you've been using it in the program is like coming up with creative and original ways to use it at different parts of the process and the decisions that you make about when to use it and when not to use it.
can have a very big impact on an end product that ends up being a a combination of those efforts in in very distinctive kind of ways.
speaker-0 (51:08.142)
Well, I think even when you use it for for brainstorming, that doesn't give you shouldn't be giving even brainstorming over to a generative AI. I will sometimes use so I I will write, you know, case packets for the tr a tournament we host at Stetson. And sometimes I'll use AI to help me brainstorm an idea.
But I can tell you, if you go back and look at that chat, it's not AI. It's not me telling AI, hey, just give me an idea for a tournament and it spits it out and I call it a day. It's me arguing with AI and saying, no, that's not right. Let's look at it from this perspective. And so even at the brainstorm level to effectively brainstorm, you still have to know what you're talking about.
speaker-2 (51:52.45)
Yeah.
speaker-1 (51:53.87)
100%. I completely agree. And I think an effect, if you do want to use it to brainstorm, I think that can be an effective use. But my recommendation would be, and something I tell my students and that I do, you know, when you're trying to come up, say you get a case file, right? Mock case, get ready for a competition, you know, read it yourself, do your analysis, talk to your your teammates, your other coaches, right? Do your own brainstorm. You all come up with different ideas because
The ones who have to try the case, which means you have to understand it fundamentally. And the way you best understand something is to really work through it yourself and think about the ins and outs. But then you can kind of come up with that list of all your different ideas. Maybe it's different theory approaches or kind of case theme ideas, whatever it may be. You brainstorm that topic, then you can put those ideas into a generative AI tool and then ask it, you know, you could.
Upload some, none, or part of the packet, you know, obviously making sure you're complying with any proprietary information or things like that. But upload it, upload your ideas and say, hey, anything we haven't thought of here or anything that you think might be helpful based on what we've already created. And you can upload and give it the two documents. And it's like use what we've come up with as a jumping off point. Is there anything we missed or what would you add to what we already have?
then you have an understanding, but you may be realizing we're out of ideas, right? But what may have we missed? And it you can then use it to supplement what you've already created as opposed to supplanting or just, you know, inserting itself for you and your independent analysis.
speaker-2 (53:39.68)
If you were talking to, as I'm sure you frequently do, if you were talking to someone who is on their way to law school or who just arrived at law school and they're thinking about what are the core skills that they need to make sure that they are really developing and not allowing a you know, to not letting these get farmed out to
to artificial intelligence in some way or another. Like what what are those core skills that you think that all law students really need to be developing still?
speaker-1 (54:14.446)
Critical thinking.
speaker-0 (54:15.544)
Yeah, words out of my mouth, Kate.
speaker-1 (54:17.566)
Critical thinking, questioning why, not taking things just at face value. And you know, that's AI or just anything in life. Just because you read it doesn't mean it's necessarily accurate or true because it's in a vacuum, right? You need to be sure maybe it is, but in what context, right? That doesn't mean something else may also not be accurate or true. Carson and I like to joke all the time. Two things can both be true at the same time. I think.
You know, sometimes we just we live in this world where information is at our fingertips and it's just we're being pumped, you know, bombarded with it left and right, whether it's social media, the news, the you know, internet, AI, it doesn't matter. We're constantly stimulated with all this information. And it can be really hard for us, especially the human brain, to process it all and critically analyze it because it's just too much. That said, when it comes to the important things, when it comes to
you know, factors that you're using to make decisions, fundamental things you're using to come to opinions or beliefs on, or you know, analyzing a case that you're then going to need to regurgitate and spit out, you know, through your own presentation in some way. You have to be able to critically think, critically analyze, ask not just the what is it, but the why is it that way? And you know, how do I adapt to this environment in order to
identify the very the various issues, question it, and then apply it to whatever unique set of circumstances may exist in order to further my opinion, position, whatever it may be. Critical thinking, critical analysis is by far the most important skill that I think any young adult and even any human being can have and develop.
speaker-0 (56:09.804)
And if I'm gonna add on to that, so because I 100% agree, critical thinking is the number one thing that students should learn to develop as a skill. And I think what can be scary about that, especially as a young student coming into law school for the first time, is you are learning how to be a student in a very new and different way, right? Law schools are
Law schools use the Socratic method, right? A question, an answer, a push and a pull. And I think that there is a tendency, I think that especially we've noticed is a real fear and hesitancy to answer a question out loud in class or to pitch an idea in group work because they're afraid that it's not right. But that is how you develop critical thinking skills by saying something that may not be entirely right.
But when you've said that idea out loud, it's not trapped with you. You get to pitch it to a professor, to a fellow classmate, hear why that idea might or might not work, what other information that idea might need. And to remember, especially as a young student, that nobody, nobody, nobody, I don't care how confident your classmate in the seat next to you is, nobody walks in with all the answers. School is to teach you how to find them.
So allow yourself to feel like you might say something silly out loud. That's okay. We all did it. and trust that everybody is going to say something wrong at some point in time. That is okay. Be wrong here, not in practice. You know, you want to you want to do that here. Being wrong is an okay place to be and get comfortable being wrong. It's how you learn and develop, not only as a lawyer, but as as a human.
speaker-2 (58:05.614)
Well I think that's a a great note to end on. Thank you both so much.
speaker-0 (58:09.976)
Thank you.
speaker-1 (58:10.648)
It was great to be here. Thanks for having us.
speaker-2 (58:12.568)
This has been Real Cases. Thank you for listening. Check back for more episodes about an array of legal topics presented by the Stetson University College of Law. Learn more at stetson.edu.
Topics: Real Cases Podcast
.jpg)