[Invest&Law] "Silent on ChatGPT, but Why Not on Domestic Technology?"

"ChatGPT works, but why not domestic companies?"

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) services rapidly expand their market presence, they are also extending their reach into the legal sector. However, there are growing calls to promptly establish proper laws or regulations regarding the introduction and use of AI in legal work, as well as the overall legal tech field, since no adequate legal framework currently exists.

원본보기 아이콘

Professor Na Ji-won of Ajou University Law School (Judicial Research and Training Institute, 33rd class) said on the 13th at the 4th Legal Tech & AI Forum held at the Korea Press Center in Jung-gu, Seoul, "Services like Gemini and ChatGPT also provide legal information search and outputs," adding, "The boundary between generative AI services and legal tech is ambiguous." At the event, Professor Na stated, "Generative AI is a rapidly evolving technology, so timely regulation through legislation is practically difficult," and "Since preemptive blanket regulations could hinder technological innovation, it is appropriate to first establish guidelines, which are easier to amend than laws, and then reflect them in regulatory frameworks or legislation if necessary."

Um Bo-woon, director at Law&Company, said, "Services like OpenAI's ChatGPT require a monthly fee of about 300,000 KRW for the pro version subscription, but through this, ordinary clients receive legal advice and practical assistance," adding, "While no particular issues are raised against global AI companies like OpenAI or Anthropic, when domestic companies try to offer similar services, regulations are imposed." Director Um also said, "In such an environment, domestic legal tech companies inevitably find themselves at a disadvantage in competition with global companies."

There are currently no guidelines related to legal tech. The Ministry of Justice’s Lawyer System Improvement Special Committee, launched in November 2023, has been gathering opinions from the industry and bar associations, but discussions have been delayed. So far, the discussions have been summarized to clarify previously ambiguous areas, but without allowing previously prohibited advertising methods.

Kim Hu-gon, representative lawyer of Robax (25th class), said, "Just as Naver maintained its position in the Google search market, domestic legal tech companies can secure their own territory if they build differentiated services," adding, "Regarding issues such as reverse discrimination, the Ministry of Justice and related institutions should move toward understanding the difficulties faced by domestic legal tech companies."

Reporter Ahn Hyun, Legal Times

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.