The upcoming service will automatically complete the forms on behalf of the applicants, who will only have to answer a few simple questions. For an extra fee, the service will even submit the forms for the suppliant. (image: KobizMedia/ Korea Bizwire)
SEOUL, May 17 (Korea Bizwire) – Korean legal service providers are trying to implement AI technology into their offerings. Although legal service was an area deemed irreplaceable by AI, there are simpler tasks in the industry that may be AI replaceable.
Help-Me, a legal counseling platform, revealed that it is presenting a new service called ‘Help-Me Order of Payment’ in June. Order of Payment is a demand procedure and a court order in which a borrower of money is ordered to pay back his/her debt on behalf of the lender.
Korea’s Civil Procedure Act allows the court to give such orders upon a creditor’s request. Since the request only requires an application form and no evidential documents, almost 1.4 million requests are filed annually. Many applicants, however, seek help in filing the applications from lawyers due to lack of legal expertise, which can be costly.
The upcoming service will automatically complete the forms on behalf of the applicants, who will only have to answer a few simple questions. For an extra fee, the service will even submit the forms for the suppliant.
“We aim to provide cheaper services to those who can’t afford professional assistance, lack legal knowledge, or simply because the redeemable amount is too little,” said a Help-Me official. “We plan to expand the platform to more diverse areas of legal documentation.”
However, there are concerns that new AI services could prolong the struggles currently faced by those in the legal profession.
Others are concerned that such uniform implementation of AI technology could violate users’ legal rights or protections.
“There is plenty of room for error because machines lack comprehensive knowledge of individual cases,” said lawyer Young-hee Roh. “Although they may be able to perform some of the more simple tasks, they may also violate the protection of the rights of suppliants.”
By Kevin Lee (kevinlee@koreabizwire.com)
As an American attorney, I find this a troublesome development.
In the US, it is far too common for legal claims for debts to be issued when the claim is not justified. This happens for various reasons: the wrong person is named due to similarity with the actual debtor, the debt itself is no longer collectable due to expiration of time permitted to pursue payment, the person or company making the claim does not have the right to collect the debt, the person or company lacks the necessary evidence to establish its claim to the debt, or the debt has already been paid.
In the US, many courts are clogged with actions filed by corporations that specialize in pursuing claims for debts. These corporations file thousands of claims, and do so without care to the above factors. The result is that innocent persons are forced to pay debts (or pay debts additional times), or face damage to their credit that can result in loss of employment or being excluded from consideration for jobs.
In many cases, the person or corporation perverts the basic premise of the justice system. A claim for a debt is filed with no evidence for the existence of the debt. When the accused denies owing the debt, they are given demands to provide evidence as to why they don’t owe the debt – a debt for which no evidence has been given to show exists. If the debtor becomes confused or fails to respond appropriately to this perverse claim to provide evidence of the non-existence of something, a court will award a judgment in favor of the person or corporation claiming the debt despite no evidence being produced.
While many creditors lack the expertise to file rightful claims, many accused of owing debts falsely also lack the expertise to fight the false claim. Permitting automatic filing of claims without any need for evidence to accompany the claim will only encourage abuse of the system by those who do have the expertise to manipulate the court system to pursue debts with no evidence or even with knowledge that their claim is false. The result will be thousands of false claims for debts that do not exist, that are no longer valid, or are owed to someone other than the claimant that will be issued to individuals with the apparent approval of the court.
If there is to be automatic assistance to persons or corporations claiming debts are owed, there should also be an automatic system instituted that permits those accused to ask for valid evidence to be produced in response to the claim. To do otherwise would unfairly tilt the justice system toward one side and encourage abuse of the system.
Perhaps Korea is not like the United States with regard to the volume of law suits for debt collection or the existence of a multibillion dollar per year debt collection industry. If it is, however, this is a very dangerous development.
Great insight, and thanks for your detailed explanation about the issue.