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

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.