Generative AI: Can Rule of Law Be Bargained for the Sake of Legal Tech Efficiency?

Ebru Metin () and Tanel Kerikmäe ()
Additional contact information
Ebru Metin: Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Business Administration and Department of Law, School of Business and Governance
Tanel Kerikmäe: Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Business Administration and Department of Law, School of Business and Governance

A chapter in Generative AI, Contracts, Law and Design, 2025, pp 93-108 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract The threats of generative AIGenerative AI in modernising justiceJustice system and lawyering are discussed among stakeholders (judges, members of Bar, IT architects, public offices responsible for innovationInnovation etc.). However, the discourse has mostly been limited to the (a) capacitiesCapacities and resources; (b) theoretical technological possibilitiesTechnological possibilities; and (c) breaking down the conservativism of judges or clients. The major problems related to “deep fake,” biasedBias / Biases algorithms, human control etc. are apprehended in the context of European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems, and AI ActAI Act. In reality, there are several existing and planned use cases of legal techLegal Technology / Legal Tech that are related to generative AIGenerative AI, presented as phenomena of progress. Although the general knowledgeKnowledge of the potential problems and errors exists and the audit by humans is highlighted as a solution, the discussion lacks certain relevant aspect—client’s (of innovative services) needs such as transparencyTransparency and accountabilityAccountability within the scope of Rule of LawRule of law. The clear lacuna is the lack of process or lifecycle for adopting the new use-cases prioritising the user-friendly approach and need for more effective access toJustice justiceAccess to Justice. InnovationInnovation in the delicate field of applying legal rules needs analysis of human perceptionPerception of justiceJustice in digital era to avoid the avangard use cases become beneficial rather to the service provider than the client who is left with the illusion of cost and time effectiveness.

Keywords: Efficiency; Generative artificial intelligence; Legal technology; Rule of law (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:perchp:978-981-95-2058-9_6

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9789819520589

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-95-2058-9_6

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().