Mitigating Legal Risks of Artificial
Intelligence: Best Practices for CounselFiduciary Expectations, Legal Challenges, Cross-Border Dealings, Managing Transactions
and Data Privacy
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2018
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Robert W. (Bob) Kantner, Partner, Jones Day, Dallas
Michael W. Kelly, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs, San Francisco
Huu Nguyen, Partner, Squire Patton Boggs, New York
Dennis Garcia, Assistant General Counsel, Microsoft, Chicago
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-866-961-8499 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can address
the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your
participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance
Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email
that you will receive immediately following the program.
For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926
ext. 2.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Program Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Mitigating Legal Risks of Artificial
Intelligence: Best Practices for
Counsel
Fiduciary Expectations, Legal Challenges, Cross-Border Dealings,
Managing Transactions and Data Privacy
Dennis Garcia
Robert Kantner
Michael Kelly
Huu Nguyen
Scope of Talk
• Scope
• AI Primer – Demystifying AI
• AI tools in the legal industry and elsewhere
• Protecting AI data in the workplace
• AI’s impact on the workplace
• AI and transportation
• Ethical usage of AI
6
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-NC-ND
What is artificial intelligence and what are related legal challenges?
What is AI?
• Application of software that mimics human intelligence to perform tasks
normally performed by people
• Examples range from reading natural language such as English, predicting
outcomes of various problems, recognizing images, driving cars
Legal Challenges For In-House Counsels
• How to advise about AI in order for to meet fiduciary duties?
• Complying with established laws, such as anti-discrimination law when using
AI’s data and algorithms
• Liability when things go wrong
• Who owns algorithms and data for intelligence or should it be owned at all?
7
Artificial Intelligence
Examples
• Natural Language Processing
• Facial Recognition
• Autonomous Vehicles (“AV”)
• Expert systems
8
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-SA
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY-NC
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY
Brief Overview of AI for Non-Techies
Types of AI Technology
• Robotics
• Non-Physical Bots
• Natural Language Processing (NLP)
• Parsing, Translation, Generation
• Vision and image recognition
• Machine Learning
More above Machine Learning
• Supervised, Unsupervised, Semi-supervised and Reinforcement Learning
• Online vs offline Learning
• Symbolic, logic, statistical and neural methods
• Training data
9
This Photo by Unknown Author
is licensed under CC BY-NC-
SA
Big Tech Making Major AI Investments
10
AI Usage Growing Across All Industries
11
AI Examples Outside of Legal Industry
12
AI Examples Outside of Legal Industry
13
AI in the Legal Industry
14
AI Use Cases/Tools in Legal Industry
• Administrative Legal Support
• Do It Yourself (DIY) & Enhance Self-Help Resources
• Compliance: BrainSpace; NexLP; Neata Logic
• Contract Review/Due Diligence: eBrevia, Kira Systems; KM Standard, Ravn Systems,
LawGeex
• Discovery: Casepoint; Kcura; Modus Ediscovery
• Legal Research: Fast Case; Gavelytics; IBM Watson Debater; Lex Machina, Ross Intelligence
• Cybersecurity
15
Microsoft Legal Team’s Use of AI
16
Sales Team or Reseller
creates a sales quote
QUOTE DEAL
Run algorithm against
quote to identify
riskiest deals based on
data attributes in real-
time
Location
India.
Partner
X com
Sector
Commercial
Risk Score
5
China
Iceland
Robert Finn
Jason Hunt
Public Sector
Commercial
90
20
!
!Hungary
Brazil
Moneymart
PAT
Public Sector
Commercial
80
40
!
Risk Score
Geo
Partner
Customer
Discount and Dollar
Analytics monitor risks
and deal is approved if
controls are satisfied
Bank Reconciliation
SECURE BANK JaneCustomer
Debit Card 30.00
13.00 Credit JohnSmith
Debit Card
Paycheck
PaymentTransaction type
Payor Transaction type
XYZ Corp
Review identified
deals and conduct
control checks and
mitigate risks with
stakeholders
821
0 100
RISK-SCORE DEAL
Risky attributes detected:• Sales Geo
• Reseller
• Customer Vertical
• Deal Revenue
• Deal Discount
Microsoft Legal Team’s Use of AI
Ethical Issues for Lawyers
Model Rule 1.1: Competence
• Comment 8: “. . .[A] lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its
practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. . .”
• Comment 1 allows consultations with experts
Model Rule 1.16: Confidentiality:
• When AI is used to evaluate client information, reasonable measures to protect
confidentiality must be taken
• Lawyers must learn about and train on security measures in the software
Model Rule 2.1: Independent Judgment
• Does programming reflect any bias?
• Reliance on expert?
• No explanation?
18
Ethical Issues for Lawyers
Model Rule 5.3: Duty to Supervise Non-Lawyers
• Comment 3 to Rule: “Lawyers may use non-lawyers outside the firm to assist the
lawyer in rendering legal services to the client.”
• Non-lawyer assistance may include firms that rely on machine intelligence.
• Lawyer can share responsibility for supervising A.I. firm with an expert.
Model Rule 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law:
• Lawyer needs to understand AI
• Lawyer needs to review final work product
19
Protecting AI Data: Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
• State laws based on UTSA Sec. 1.4: "Trade secret" means information, including
a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or
process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by
proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under
the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
• Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016
• What is the main form of AI trade secret?
• Algorithms and processes whether or not patentable
• Other AI Data such as neural networks, training data and sensor data
20
Protecting AI Data: Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
• “AI Data” means algorithms and processes, data, corpus, training sets,
parameters, neural network, rules, sensor data, etc. …
• Example is the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data that is the subject of
the Waymo v. Uber suit
• Issue
― Since most AI “knowledge” is stored as data or information, Trade
Secret protection is the ideal means for protecting the information
― Having confidentiality provisions is necessary (but not sufficient) to
keep information secret.
― Trade Secrets protection should survive the term of the
confidentiality agreement.
― Include Defend Trade Secrets Act Notice in NDAs
21
This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY
AI Dispute - Waymo LLC vs Uber Technologies, Inc.
• Waymo [LLC] sued Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Ottomotto LLC, and Otto
Trucking LLC (together, “Ottomotto”) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (“District Court”) alleging, inter alia, claims of
patent infringement and violations of federal and state trade secret laws.
Specifically, Waymo alleges that its former employee, Mr. Levandowski,
improperly downloaded thousands of documents related to Waymo’s driverless
vehicle technology and then left Waymo to found Ottomotto, which Uber
subsequently acquired. Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc (Fed. Cir. 2017); http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2235.Opinion.9-11-2017.1.PDF
• Waymo asked for $1.859 billion for Trade Secret 25 … and less for the
remaining trade secrets. Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc. (Waymo I), No. 17-cv-
00939-WHA (JSC), 2017 WL 2485382; https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4059938-1778-
Waymo-s-Opposition-to-Defendants-Mtn-to.html
• February 2018, Uber agreed to pay Waymo $245M to settle the suit. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-uber-trial/waymo-accepts-245-million-and-ubers-regret-to-settle-self-driving-
car-dispute-idUSKBN1FT2BA
22
Defining Confidential Information – Protecting Intellectual Property
• Exclusions from Confidential Information. Except as required by applicable
federal, state, or local law or regulation (“Law”), and except for [Supplier’s]
[or Customer’s] AI Data which will remain confidential, the term
“Confidential Information” as used in this Agreement shall not include
information that falls within the following exceptions (“Confidentiality
Exceptions”): (a) at the time of disclosure is, or thereafter becomes,
generally available to and known by the public other than as a result of,
directly or indirectly, any act or omission by the Recipient/Customer or any of
its Representatives; …
• Issue
• Should publicly available data be excluded and how?
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/technology/uber-waymo-trial.html
• Uber’s lawyers argued in its opening statement that their technology was
similar to Waymo’s because it was based on publicly available data
• Takeaway: Protect AI Data as Confidential Information in addition to as
Trade Secrets23
AI in the Workplace - Fair Credit Reporting Act
- FCRA also applies to background screening companies and may apply to data
brokers.
- FTC entering into consent decrees with several data brokers which
advertise their consumer profiles for employment screening purposes
- FCRA requirements:
- Consumer Reporting Agencies implement reasonable procedures to ensure
maximum accuracy of reports
- Consumer access to review and correct information
- Notice if an adverse decision is made based on a consumer report
- Federal Trade Commission warning: “companies should be mindful of the law when
using big data analytics to make FCRA-covered eligibility determinations.”
- How does a consumer review an AI’s “file” or get to “dispute incomplete or
inaccurate information”?
- How do you notify when an AI does not select a candidate for an interview?
24
Employment Discrimination by Robot?
- Use of AI algorithm and big data to make employment decisions
- What is the algorithm basing the decisions on?
- Disparate Impact versus Disparate Treatment
- Age, Race, Gender, Disabilities, etc.
- Algorithms cannot directly disfavor protected groups
- Some features of algorithms may have a disproportionately adverse impact
on a protected class
- An AI “learns” that best employees come from suburbs which tend
to have largely white populations
- Understand the difference between “correlation” and “causation”
25
AI and Workplace Privacy – Workplace Monitoring
• Why Monitor?
• Recording activities for training an AI
• Unknown monitoring by vendors for their own AIs
• Cybersecurity
• Protecting company assets and information
• Mobile devices, IoT devices and tracking.
• When can employers monitor GPS and geo track employees?
• Some states require consent of owner of device or vehicle to track
• some states permit employees to sue under common law invasion of privacy or
other state privacy laws
• Medical privacy issues for tracking fitness wearables (e.g., in relation to
employee wellness programs)
26
AI and Workplace Privacy – Workplace Monitoring
• Employees privacy protection in the workplace:
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
― Lee v. PMSI, Inc., 2011 (breaching an employer's acceptable use
policy was not "unauthorized access" under the act and, therefore,
did not violate the CFAA)
• State privacy torts and constitutional privacy rights
• Recommendation
• Use written, disseminated policies to notify employees they will be
monitored
• Narrow employees’ expectation of privacy in the workplace
• Include an acknowledgement by employees that they will be minitored
27
Artificial Intelligence and Workplace Torts
Despite fears of displacement, automation in industry and other
sectors is predicted to lead to:
• a safer and more efficient workplace environment
• a decrease in worker injuries
• workers compensation savings for employers
28
Artificial Intelligence and Workplace Torts
29
http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2015/20150223_2/
Artificial Intelligence and Workplace Torts
Risks Still Exist!
While overall workplace safety should be improved, introducing robots into the work
environment with humans does create a risk of injury from the robots themselves—with
the fault potentially resting with the employer (e.g., failure to implement safety
protocols), the employee (e.g., misuse or failure to observe safety protocols), the
manufacturer (e.g., for defective design), or other third parties.
30
Artificial Intelligence and Workplace Torts
Product Liability Claims
• Under a traditional framework, when someone is injured using a product, product
liability law determines when and to whom liability attaches
• Product liability is a creature of state common and statutory law:
• Negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages)
• Breach of warranty (merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose)
• Strict Liability (RST 2d Torts § 402A )
― Design defect
― Manufacturing defect
― Failure to warn
31
AI in Transportation
32
Google Self Driving Car Project
Est. 2009
33
Waymo Self Driving Car Project
2018
34
Autonomous Trucks
35
Autonomous planes
36
Autonomous Boats
37
Autonomous Trains
38
Autonomous Cars – South Korea
39
May 9, 2017
Autonomous Cars – Japan
40
February 15, 2017
June 6, 2017
September 8, 2016
Autonomous Cars – China
41
July 5, 2017
Regulatory Risks – Technical Challenges
• Neural networks are so called because they mimic – approximately – the
structure of the brain. They are composed of a large number of processing
nodes that, like individual neurons, are capable of only very simple
computations but are connected to each other in dense networks.
• In a process referred to as "deep learning," training data is fed to a network's
input nodes, which modify it and feed it to other nodes, which modify it and
feed it to still other nodes, and so on. The values stored in the network's
output nodes are then correlated with the classification category that the
network is trying to learn – such as the objects in an image, or the topic of an
essay.
• Over the course of the network's training, the operations performed by the
individual nodes are continuously modified to yield consistently good results
across the whole set of training examples. By the end of the process, the
computer scientists who programmed the network often have no idea what the
nodes' settings are. Even if they do, it can be very hard to translate that low-
level information back into an intelligible description of the systern's decision-
making process.
42
Regulatory Risk – Technical Challenges
D
O
G
D
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
INPUTNODES
PERFORMANCENODES
OUTPUTNODES
43
Regulatory Risk – Technical Challenges
D
O
G
D
O
X
2
3
4
5
9
8
7
6
INPUTNODES
PERFORMANCENODES
OUTPUTNODES
44
Regulatory Risk – Technical Challenges
D
O
G
D
O
G
3
4
5
6
10
9
8
7
INPUTNODES
PERFORMANCENODES
OUTPUTNODES
45
Regulatory Risk – Technical Challenges
D
O
G
D
O
G
6
5
4
3
7
8
9
10
INPUTNODES
PERFORMANCENODES
OUTPUTNODES
46
Liability Risks – Proof of Design Defect
• In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Products Liability Litigation, 978 F.
Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (applying Georgia law)
• Executor of driver’s estate sued automobile manufacturer to recover damages she
sustained when her vehicle unexpectedly accelerated allegedly without her depressing
the gas pedal.
• One issue was whether plaintiff’s expert would be allowed to testify that the car had a
design defect even though he could not identify with certainty a specific software bug
(or other specific cause) that could have opened the throttle from its idle position.
• The expert did assert there were errors in the source code, including:
• Inadequate operating system;
• Substandard ECM software architecture;
• Negligently designed watchdog supervisor software;
• Untestable, unduly complex nature of the “spaghetti” code;
• Task X could disable the fail-safes and cause unaccelerated acceleration;
• An unidentified software bug could cause partial task death of Task X.
• (Task X calculates throttle angle, monitors for system failure and enters fail
safe modes.
47
Proof of Design Defect
• The court determined that Georgia law did not require identification of a specific
defect.
• To determine liability for alleged design defects, Georgia applies a risk-utility test.
This test incorporates the concept of reasonableness, i.e. whether the manufacturer
acted reasonably in choosing a particular product design, given the probability and
seriousness of the risk posed by the design, the usefulness of the product in that
condition, and the burden on the manufacturer to take the necessary steps to eliminate
the risk.
• All the plaintiff must show is that the device did not operate as intended and this was
the proximate cause of his/her injuries.
• Design defects may be proven through circumstantial evidence. This is especially true
when:
• The alleged defect destroys the evidence necessary to prove the defect; or
• When the evidence is otherwise unavailable through no fault of the plaintiff.
• Here, plaintiff’s expert testified that the car’s software does not record software
failures. That’s good enough.
• Motion to strike expert report denied. Motion for summary judgment denied.
• Case settled.
48
Technical Challenges to Regulation
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2016 Report on Robotics and Artificial
Intelligence explained the need to ensure AI operates as intended
According to the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (Menlo Park,
CA):
It is critical that one should be able to prove, test, measure and validate the
reliability, performance, safety and ethical compliance–both logically and
statistically/probabilistically – of such robotics and artificial intelligence systems
before they are deployed.
Similarly, Professor Stephen Muggleton, Professor of Machine Learning at Imperial College,
London, saw a pressing need:
To ensure that we can develop a methodology by which testing can be done and the
systems can be retrained, if they are machine learning systems, by identifying
precisely where the element of failure was.
But the verification and validation of autonomous systems is “extremely challenging”
since they are increasingly designed to learn, adapt and self-improve during their
deployment. Traditional methods of software verification cannot extend to these
situations.
49
Technical Challenges to Regulation
The House of Commons Report posed the challenge:
It is currently rare for AI systems to be set up to provide a reason for reaching a particular
decision. For example, when Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo played Lee Sedol in March 2016,
the machine was able to beat its human opponent in one match by playing a highly
unusual move that prompted match commentators to assume that AlphaGo had
malfunctioned. AlphaGo cannot express why it made this move and, at present, humans
cannot fully understand or unpick its rationale. As Dr. Owen Cotton-Barratt from the
Future of Humanity Institute reflected, we do not “really know how the machine was
better than the best human Go player.”
. . . .
Part of the problem [is] that researchers’ efforts [have] previously been focused on
achieving slightly better performance on well-defined problems, such as the classification
of images or the translation of text while the “interpretation of the algorithms that were
produced to achieve those goals had been left as a secondary goal.”
50
Possible Regulation – An Explanation
• Harvard University Berkman Klein Center Working Group on Explanation and the Law
says:
• A.I. / A.I. devices should give the reasons or justifications for a particular
outcome, but not a description of the decision-making procedures.
• Also, we need to know whether changing a factor would change the
decision.
• This explanation should be given whenever a human (or corporation)
would have to give an explanation.
• But what about the weighing of factors? Judgment?
51
Google Researchers Say They’re Learning How Machines Learn
52
March 7, 2018
Google Research
53
March 7, 2018
Inside a neural network, each neuron works to identify a particular characteristic that might show up in a photo, like a line that curves from right to left at a certain angle or several lines that merge to form a larger shape. Google wants to provides tools that show what each neuron in trying to identify, which ones are successful and how their efforts combine to determine what is actually in the photo – perhaps a dog or a tuxedo or a bird.
Google Research
54
March 7, 2018The kind of technology Google is discussing
could also help identify why a neural network is prone to mistakes and, in some cases, explain how it learned this behavior; Mr. Olah said. Other researchers, including Mr. Clune, believe they can also help minimize the threat of “adversarial examples” – where someone can potentially fool neural networks by, say, doctoring an image.
Ethical Usage of AI
55
Source: “The Future Computed: Artificial Intelligence and its role in society,” January 17, 2018.https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/01/17/future-computed-artificial-intelligence-role-society/
56
Ethical and Risk Mitigation Issues
Real ethical issues in “no good outcome” situation
Development of AI:
• Explanation
• Document Retention
Ethical Issues for Lawyers
• Competence
• Witness?
• Compliance
57
Practical Takeaways
58
About the Speakers
Huu Nguyen
Squire Patton Boggs, New York, [email protected]
Mr. Nguyen is a deal lawyer, focusing his practice on commercial and corporate transactions in the
technology space. Prior to being an attorney, Huu was an AI programmer, and research scientist.
Mike Kelly
Squire Patton Boggs, San Francisco, [email protected]
Mr. Kelly has experience in employment litigation, counseling, collective bargaining and arbitration. His
practice includes state and federal employment litigation regarding wage and hour issues, age and disability
discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation.
Robert Kantner
Jones Day, Dallas, [email protected]
Bob Kantner is an experienced trial lawyer who handles intellectual property and business cases. Bob has
gone to trial 36 times (half IP and half business), serving as lead trial counsel in 28 of those trials; his clients
have prevailed outright in 75 percent of the trials. Bob organized a working group at Jones Day focused on
artificial intelligence and robotics and serves on another working group focused on autonomous vehicles. He
has written a white paper on legal issues related to the development of autonomous and connected cars and
has written and spoken about artificial intelligence numerous times, most recently on the subject of ethical
issues for lawyers using artificial intelligence.
Dennis Garcia
Microsoft Corporation, Chicago, [email protected] and @DennisCGarcia on Twitter
Mr. Garcia practices at the intersection of law, technology and business and provides a wide range of legal
support to Microsoft’s US Sales, Marketing & Operations teams.
59
Top Related