ROBOTS VS. PREDATORS: CAN GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HELP TO ADDRESS THE JUSTICE GAP IN CONSUMER DEBT LITIGATION?

With generative artificial intelligence's growing availability in early 2023, many have expressed fears that this technological innovation might relieve humans of the burden of carrying out some repetitive and simple tasks, and possibly cost them their livelihoods. It also raised the specter that this, and related technologies, could end up displacing workers, including lawyers. The initial burst of enthusiasm surrounding the availability of generative artificial intelligence (GenAD to the public - including from members of the legal profession - was quickly dampened when lawyers began relying on the work product of this technology to aid them in preparing legal documents, with rather unfortunate results. In some instances, lawyers were subject to sanctions by judges for submitting documents with GenAI "hallucinations," where the technology "found" authorities for legal propositions where no such authorities existed, which those lawyers relied upon to their detriment. Given these and other experiences with GenAI demonstrating an inability to satisfy even the most basic standard of care that lawyers must meet when serving clients, the initial excitement surrounding this technology receded. Yet lawyers and technologists have continued to explore ways to harness GenAI to make the-work of the legal profession more efficient and effective, while ensuring that lawyers are able to uphold their ethical obligations, even when they deploy new technologies to attempt to address their clients' legal needs. While GenAI and other related technologies, like machine learning, might play some future role in displacing some, if not many, of the functions of the legal profession, the introduction of these new technologies might serve to address needs where the profession is currently failing. That is to say, GenAI does not run the risk of displacing lawyers where few lawyers currently serve clients in need. What is more, in at least some areas where lawyers are failing to meet the legal needs of those in need, those needs call for interventions that GenAI is quite well-suited to execute: highly repetitive tasks, at scale, involving problems of relatively low complexity, and possibly even relatively low stakes. One such area is consumer debt. In the United States, millions of Americans of low- and moderate-income are sued for relatively small amounts Of money-ranging from $5,000-10,000. Many of the plaintijfs in these cases are "debt buyers": entities that have paid a very small percentage of the face value of debts for the right to try to collect it and use the courts as their primary vehicle for doing so. The overwhelming majority of those creditor-plaintiffs are represented by counsel, whereas only a tiny fraction of the debtor-defendants have legal representation. The nature of these cases lends itself to the use of technology-driven interventions, fueled by GenAL to provide some legal guidance, support, and perhaps even the preparation of formal pleadings, in order to assist debtors to defend themselves in court. This Article explores the theoretical, technological, ethical, and practical challenges associated with creating a GenAI-powered intervention that might help address the significant asymmetry of legal representation and assistance in consumer debt cases. Through such an exploration, it will identify the opportunities and risks of developing such tools to help close the justice gap more broadly, in this and other areas of law where the nature of the dispute might lend itself to this type of intervention. It will also identify areas of further research and inquiry as the legal profession strives to not just adapt to, but also harness, the introduction of GenAI into the practice of law in ways that are effective, while also ensuring it will serve the broader goal of the profession, which should be to expand access to justice and do so in ethical, equitable, and meaningful ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]