I will argue in this last article that a convergence of efforts in different regulatory spheres is needed to ensure a secure deployment of AI-based tools in the law. Access to justice and the right to a fair trial are principles that cannot be compromised and that must be safeguarded against an abusive use of
With unrestricted automation comes the risk of embedding existing discrimination into AI. These biases would then be maintained within the algorithm-based programmes and could lead to additional areas of discrimination. While this is one highly undesirable consequence of the use of automated systems, AI can lead to major violations of human rights. This topic will
From speedier case management and quicker trial preparations to harmonisation of jurisprudence, legal tech can be a helpful assistant in judges’ and arbitrators’ justice-serving role. Even in the private sector, AI-based tools can facilitate legal research and enhance the efficiency of lawyers’ and jurists’ work. I will expose here the main opportunities presented by a
The first guardians against unwanted consequences of the algorithmic revolution are legislators. The importance of regulatory initiatives by central authorities must not be overlooked. States have the primary responsibility to protect fundamental freedoms under the public international law obligations that they have undertaken by signing and ratifying human rights treaties. As is illustrated by the
In a 2017 report on ethical matters raised by algorithms, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL, “Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés”) stated “The algorithm without data is blind. Data without algorithms is dumb”.1 We are about to understand how true this assertion is. In judicial processes, the main threat posed by automation is
Digitalisation, on the one hand, and automation, on the other hand, can greatly help speed up trial proceedings: documents can be scanned by algorithms to verify their authenticity, or to make sure that every party has access to the same documentation. Furthermore, automated processes can reduce the amount of time spent by lawyers on document-review
In this first part of our deep dive into the comparative analysis of legal tech between France and the UK, I shall explain some of the major legal implications that are brought to the surface by the advent of legal tech. While there are undoubtedly many advantages to this novelty, a limitless adoption of algorithms
What are the benefits and tensions that automation can bring into the legal sphere, and how are the British and French legal systems managing these challenges while accounting for the rapid evolution of technology without encroaching on their fundamental legal principles? The term “artificial intelligence” (AI) was coined in 1979 by computer scientist John McCarthy1
Abstract di Caterina Barberi Legal tech, but more generally automated systems, can pose real threats to the current values of justice. The risks of careless and unverified automation are similar or even potentially more severe than those encountered in the traditionally slow, costly, and unsatisfactory (sometimes even unfair?) justice systems. In addition, algorithmic discrimination is
