The relationship between a fictional probate lawsuit written in the mid 19th century, and the cutting edge of artificial intelligence is far from apparent, but it might be increasingly pertinent.
The satirical case embodied Dickens’ disgust of the Victorian legal system and its shortcomings, specifically that of the Court of Chancery. The multi-generational dispute is a stark depiction of the inefficiency of the legal system in the past and the human toll that it can inflict.
Jarndyce v Jarndyce epitomises legal delays and inefficiency, a problem which the use of legal AI alternatives such as Harvey, Legora and Jylo are attempting to leave in the past. The use of AI has the potential to dismantle Dickens’ prejudice of the legal system, reshaping it as a time-efficient, innovative and flexible practice.
How AI can help to prevent Jarndyce v Jarndyce-esque cases
- E-Discovery Automation
AI platforms, such as Harvey, use natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to quickly sift through large sets of documents. This can enable them to identify the relevant contracts, texts or emails in a drastically shorter time than a human employee could. Thus preventing the ridiculously extended time-frame of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case.
- Outcome Prediction
AI tools can analyse historical case data and precedent in order to forecast the likely rulings, settlement probabilities and costs of litigation. This allows them to calculate costs before-hand, as well as gauge the likelihood of success, which is integral to providing realistic client advice. With a more informed report of the cases’ winnability and expected costs, lawyers are in a better position to discourage un-winnable client pursuits or cost-prohibitive claims. This would inevitably avoid a cost and duration disaster like the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case.
- Settlement Encouragement
By estimating settlement values and risks of litigation from a price-perspective, AI is more likely to persuade parties to opt for mediation or arbitration as opposed to litigation, in order to avoid long court backlogs and delays. This will allow many disputes to be solved without going to court and avoid the long process of litigation entirely.
How AI could actually cause more cases like Jarndyce v Jarndyce
- Fictitious case citations
AI tools have been know to fabricate legal precedents, this was seen in Chat GPT’s fabrication of Mata v Avianca, a case that never existed. These errors can be extremely detrimental to the clarity of a litigation process, and shroud the case in confusion by both parties. This mirrors the slippery and unspecified precedents seen in the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case.
- Misleading evidence
Mistakes made by AI tools can trigger motions to correct records and appeals that can greatly extend time-lines and costs. These mistakes can be amplified and exacerbated by the fact that many lawyers who have been tasked to use the AI are unfamiliar with its workings, causing a divide between the information that the AI is trying to convey and the lawyers interpretation; such mixups can be extremely costly and inconvenient, and are likely caused by AI’s infancy in development.
- Black-Box decision making
Many AI tools have obscure processes that conceal how conclusions are drawn and how outputs are generated. In 2024, A Cambridge study found that the absence and lack of explainability could actually undermine judicial transparency which could lead to challenges in ruling that have been influenced by AI. This mirrors the baffled nature of the parties in the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case and the failure and ineptitude of the lawyers to fully explain their processes.
What can we learn from the case?
- Efficiency should be prioritised
In the case: The decades long duration of Jarndyce v Jarndyce and its consumption of the state in the form of fees and the “heaps of papers” clogging the system.
In application: Courts and legal practitioners should adopt streamlined processes. AI can help to automate and thus shorten document review and case management, speeding up the process, and time limits should be allocated for processes to prevent multi-decade affairs.
- Vulnerable litigants must be protected from systemic harm
In the case: The predicament that Richard Carstone and Miss Flite were left in demonstrated the crushing nature that ineffective legal proceedings posses.
In application: Access to justice should be enhanced, using AI tools like DoNotPay which can provide guidance to self-represented litigants, possibly reducing their vulnerability throughout the litigation process and ensuring that they are cared for.
- Transparency is essential in legal processes
In the case: “No man alive knows what it means”, the labyrinth of the case which causes confusion and despair.
In application: Transparency in AI uses must be mandated, only “glass box” models should be permitted use in court.
https://www.lawtechdaily.com/oct-25-2023/
Table of Contents
Written by George Hocking
- Antitrust
- Artificial Intelligence
- Dispute resolution
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property
- Law in Literature
- Legal News
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Private Equity
- Uncategorized
© George Hocking, 2025
Leave a Reply