Recently, as many 5-10 judgements halucianted by AI had been cited by adovcates in their pleading before NCLT and NCLAT, which the NCLT and NCLAT also did not verify and check accuracies of, and provided judgements in light of those quotations and conclusions. These similar situations could also arise before arbitral tribunals and other courts. We aim to counter such situations with this tech model.
Our model will require upload of advocate or lawyer pleading and cases cited. It will then check accuracy and match the quoted text, judgment name with those in the record. And if any argument is made on such judgment, the model will check the logical point or orbiter dicta put forth by the judgement and whether the argument accurately mentions the same.
This projects provides greater amount of rule of law, certainity and predictability, without loss of time and resources, and loss of exchecquer money, public funds, taxpayer contributions and provides for greater equality, efficiency and rule of law. The courts and registry will spend lesser time in such administrative tasks, and can spend that time improving the access, quality of justice while improving their overall efficiency and productivity. The court and tribunals, which are over-burdened can significantly reduce some amount of this pendency, if such tech model is adopted and some amount of their time is freed up from this manual exercises and procedures.
We aim to counter falsely or inaccurately quoted judgments, wrongly put forth orbiter dicta, settled positions and logical conclusions provided by judgments, which will only reduce the time spent on such halucinations. With licensing of a database, we can accurately check any and all kinds of pleadings in minutes, and provide quantitative accuracy of quotations and positions put forth in pleadings as compared to those provided by judgements. This can significantly reduce court embarrasments similar to NCLT and NCLAT, while improving efficiency and time and resources undertaken to manually assess the accuracy of such claims. Almost, all courts, tribunals and adr mechanisms will be benefitted by such adoption.
Later this tech, in a slightly different format, but similar accuracy verification and feedback, can be used by law firms to assess last-step review, of their advisory and opinions to be harmonious with latest judgements, without relying heavily on research of interns, which is passed to associates, and further to partners. This can also reduce the risk of halucinated advice, opinions and significantly reduce the scope and possibility of malpractice claims against such services.
The access to such tech can be provided at a subsidised and reduced rate to courts and tribunals. But the standard rate and higher rate shall be applicable to arbitral tribunals and law firms, which will utilise this tech.