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

The threats of generative AI in modernising justice system and lawyering are discussed among stakeholders (judges, members of Bar, IT architects, public offices responsible for innovation etc.). However, the discourse has mostly been limited to the (a) capacities and resources; (b) theoretical technological possibilities; and (c) breaking down the conservativism of judges or clients. The major problems related to “deep fake,” biased algorithms, human control etc. are apprehended in the context of European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems, and AI Act. In reality, there are several existing and planned use cases of legal tech that are related to generative AI, presented as phenomena of progress. Although the general knowledge 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 transparency and accountability within the scope of Rule 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 to justice. Innovation in the delicate field of applying legal rules needs analysis of human perception of justice 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.