Hadar Yoana Jabotinsky (The Hadar Jabotinsky Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Financial Markets, Crises and Technology (HJC)) & Michal Lavi (Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law; The Hadar Jabotinsky Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Financial Markets, Crises and Technology (HJC)) have posted AI in the Courtroom: The Boundaries of RoboLawyers and RoboJudges (Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 35 (forthcoming,2025)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly developing and undoubtedly impacting every aspect of our lives. From lethal drones, through Apple's Siri, to cancer diagnostics, AI algorithms are also increasingly integrated into decision-making, including the legal system and profession, which this Article focuses on.
Currently, AI legal tools support lawyers' and judges' work and can assist in tasks such as due diligence, legal analysis, classification of documents by Technology-Assisted Review (TAR), providing legal advice, and engaging in predicting legal judgments. AI can even assist judges in decision making for risk assessments during sentencing. The emergence of generative AI and platforms like ChatGPT, which can draft human-like writing, has the potential to be a significant leap forward toward the second wave of AI legal revolution. This advancement not only supports the legal profession and the legal system but also has the potential to replace a lawyer or a judge. After all, GTP-4 took the bar exam and achieved a score that outperformed nearly 90% of the test takers.
Undoubtedly, RoboLawyers and RoboJudges have immense potential to revolutionize the legal services landscape, enhancing efficiency within legal systems, reducing the cost of legal services, and broadening access to justice. However, the adoption of such systems raises notable concerns and challenges. Should we embrace the integration of AI in the legal system? Moreover, what limitations should govern its utilization? Is it acceptable for a RoboLawyer to represent a litigant in court, or should there be restrictions? Additionally, should we consider the automation of legal systems to incorporate RoboJudges, which suggest penalties to human judges based on big data analysis of case information and previous judgments from analogous cases? This article seeks to address these pressing questions, draw the borders of the automated judge/lawyer, and aims to offer comprehensive insights.
This article aims to contribute to the literature in several ways. Firstly, it provides an overview of AI uses within legal systems, among lawyers, and within courts. Secondly, it addresses the primary challenges and concerns recognized in legal literature concerning the use of AI systems: safety and accuracy, transparency, accountability, nondiscrimination, and privacy. It also explores potential methods to mitigate these concerns to some degree. Subsequently, it examines the regulatory initiatives already implemented to govern the use of AI and mitigate associated risks. Finally, it concludes that despite precautions and safeguards, there are boundaries that should not be crossed, and certain uses should be rejected outright. Currently, AI should not replace litigating lawyers and judges in courts.
The law does not evolve in isolation; it evolves with the changing times. Therefore, making decisions solely based on past statistical data impedes the development of the law. Moreover, the automation of legal representation and judicial decisions within state courts infringes upon the legitimacy of the legal system, the rule of law, and fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial, equality under the law, and the right to reasoning that humans can comprehend. Additionally, automating the legal process diminishes the autonomy of involved parties, treating them as means rather than ends. This approach, to some extent, dehumanizes them and undermines their dignity.
Addressing the boundaries of RoboLawyers and RoboJudges is crucial today more than ever. RoboLawyers and RoboJudges already exist and are gaining momentum globally. For instance, the New York startup DoNotPay's bot can function as a RoboLawyer, representing defendants contesting traffic tickets in courts. Similarly, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in China uses a system that effectively participates in judicial decision-making. Even in England, with its legal system boasting 1,000 years of tradition, judges were recently allowed to use AI to assist in producing rulings. Therefore, addressing the boundaries of AI systems within the legal framework is essential.
