Triona Cody: The use of artificial intelligence tools in WRC cases
Reading time: 4 minutes
Triona Cody
Kane Tuohy employment lawyer Triona Cody examines the WRC’s new AI guidance for litigants.
Last month, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) issued guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to prepare material for submission to the WRC.
The guidance follows a recent WRC decision where a party’s written submissions included legal citations generated by AI that were found to be inaccurate or non-existent.
Case overview
A cabin crew employee of Ryanair DAC, who was not legally represented, submitted a complaint to the WRC, alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and family status. The employee also alleged that they were victimised, harassed, and sexually harassed in the workplace. The allegations related to issues around promotion, training and conditions of employment.
During the WRC hearing, Ryanair’s legal representatives raised concerns regarding the legal citations relied upon by the complainant in his written submissions, specifically:
“it appeared that the Complainant’s submissions may have been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence. This is particularly so where the case citations relied upon do not appear to give the outcome which the Complainant relied upon.”
The complainant initially denied, but later acknowledged on the second day of the hearing, the use of AI in preparing the submissions and became defensive about its use. Several of the legal citations relied upon by the complainant and generated by AI were incorrect or misleading information presented as fact.
The WRC dismissed the complaints alleged by the complainant as they were not well founded. The Adjudication Officer (AO) expressly noted in the decision:
“While I’m not particularly concerned about whether the Complainant used AI or not I am clear that parties making submissions to the WRC have an obligation to ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer. These submissions were rife with citations that were not relevant, mis-quoted and in many instances, non-existent. The Complainant wasted a considerable amount of time of the Respondent and the Adjudication Officer in seeking to establish the veracity or otherwise of legal citations.”
WRC guidance
The WRC issued their guidance on the responsible use of AI tools by all parties when preparing written submissions or documents for WRC proceedings shortly after the publication of the decision.
The guidance clarifies that AI tools such as ChatGPT, AI writing assistants or AI based legal research websites can assist in drafting and explaining legal concepts but should not be relied upon as legal advice. All submissions to the WRC are the responsibility of the submitting party even if an AI tool was used to prepare them. This means that:
- The submitting party must take full responsibility for the content;
- If any legal information is incorrect or misleading, it may negatively affect the submitting party’s case; and
- The submitting party may be asked to explain their submission or provide clarification.
Risks identified
The guidance identifies the risks of relying on AI tools, including (i) inaccurate legal advice, fictional or incorrect references known as “AI hallucinations”; (ii) overconfidence in AI-generated arguments which may lead to errors in legal reasoning; and (iii) using free online AI tools may present data privacy concerns if personal data or commercially sensitive information is entered.
Best practices
The guidance recommends best practices when using AI tools. The submitting party should:
- verify all legal content prior to submission and understand what is being submitted.
- avoid including sensitive personal data in AI tools.
- do not rely on AI for legal strategy or outcomes.
- consider disclosing in their submission that parts of it were drafted using an AI tool while confirming the accuracy of all content.
Incorrect or misleading information in written submissions to the WRC may undermine the submitting party’s arguments, delaying the hearing of the case, require the submitting party to make corrections or clarifications and in serious cases, could affect how the credibility of the submitting party is viewed.
Key takeaways
-
AI tools can support preparation of written submissions or documents for WRC proceedings but are not a substitute for understanding the case, the law that applies or reliable advice.
-
AI tools are not specifically trained on Irish employment and equality law or WRC procedures.
-
Be careful not to use phantom case citations to support WRC complaints and incorrect legal arguments or strategy. This may negatively impact credibility before the WRC.
-
All AI-generated material should be checked for accuracy and relevance prior to submission to the WRC.
-
AI tools should be used responsibly and transparently.
Triona Cody is a partner in Kane Tuohy’s employment and litigation department. Kate Farrelly assisted in the writing of this article.
Share this article:
Subscribe to our newsletter to not miss articles like this one:
SUBSCRIBE
