THE FUTURE OF LEGAL PRACTICE: EXPLORING THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM – ALSA-NG EDITORIAL BOARD (ARTICLE SERIES ALSA NG JUNE NEWSFILE)

Contributors: Atuegwu¹, Lazarus², Nweke³

ABSTRACT:

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have significantly impacted various sectors, the legal profession inclusive. As these technologies continue to evolve, it is crucial to explore their ethical implications within the Nigerian justice system. The present literature review explores the growing impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the Nigerian justice system. It sheds light on the prospects, obstacles, and probable consequences of its assimilation. Utilizing a broad array of scholarly resources, we examine the implementation of AI in various domains, including but not limited to predictive law enforcement, risk evaluation, evidentiary analysis, and judicial decision-making. The review recognizes the advantages of artificial intelligence, such as enhanced efficacy, precision, and impartiality in legal proceedings, while also expressing apprehensions regarding potential partialities, ethical predicaments, and risks to confidentiality and human liberties. Furthermore, it is crucial to underscore the significance of interdisciplinary cooperation and comprehensive regulatory frameworks in guaranteeing the judicious and impartial integration of AI technologies in the Nigerian justice system. The present study endeavors to make a significant scholarly contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding artificial intelligence and its intersection with the legal field. By examining the opportunities and challenges of integrating AI in legal systems, this review provides specific insights into formulating policies around algorithmic accountability, transparency, and ethical safeguards to ensure responsible AI adoption.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Justice Systems, Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION:

The legal profession has witnessed a significant transformation with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). These technologies have the potential to revolutionize various aspects of legal practice, from legal research and document analysis to case prediction and client communication. However, the integration of AI and ML into the legal system also raises important ethical considerations that must be addressed to ensure the fair and responsible use of these technologies.

The concept of justice has a significant position within a given society, serving as a crucial element in guaranteeing equity, safeguarding individual rights, and upholding established societal standards. Therefore, the rise of AI as a technology of significance has garnered the interest of scholars, professionals, and policymakers within the legal field (Buchholtz, 2020). AI is a subfield of computer science focused on developing computer systems and algorithms capable of performing tasks that typically require human cognition (Sarker, 2022). This encompasses a range of techniques, including machine learning, neural networks, natural language processing, and data analytics that empower computers to acquire knowledge, logically reason, interpret sensory inputs, communicate in language, and adapt to new situations (Engel et al., 2022; Schuetz & Venkatesh, 2020). While narrow AI focuses on specialized capabilities, the long-term vision is for artificial general intelligence (AGI) with the same broad cognitive abilities as humans. Overall, AI refers to information processing techniques that enable intelligent behavior and decision making by computer systems. The judiciary, also known as the judicial system or court system, assumes a vital function within a country's legal framework as it is responsible for the interpretation, execution, and maintenance of the law (Yavuz, 2022). It serves as a method for resolving conflicts, protecting legal entitlements, and administering judicial decisions (Watson, 2020) with the primary objective of ensuring fairness, impartiality, and consistency in the implementation of legal principles, thereby promoting social cohesion and upholding the authority of the law (Lee, 2023). The variation in the composition and organization of the judiciary is contingent upon the legal traditions, administrative structure, and historical evolution of different countries. The purpose of this present study is, therefore to assess the potential of AI in augmenting the efficacy, fairness, and accessibility of the judicial system. Moreover, this comprehensive analysis aims to comprehensively analyze the various problems and ethical dilemmas that may arise during the implementation of these technologies.

AI APPLICATIONS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

AI is having a profound effect on the legal profession and AI-powered tools have been programmed and trained to practice law. Apparently, the criminal justice system is increasingly relying on big data analytics, machine learning, and AI systems and this holds promise for enhancing the operational efficiency of the justice system and accessibility of courts for individuals who would otherwise face exclusion. However, it also presents significant risks to the preservation and protection of fundamental human rights. AI, for instance, has the potential to give rise to biased decision-making, prejudice, and a deficiency in accountability.

However, the adoption of AI systems in the legal context shows some distinct patterns across different countries. For instance, China has implemented AI tools mainly as supplements aimed at enhancing efficiency in judicial processes (Wang, 2020). While intended to optimize court operations, the rollout of AI technologies like "robot judges" faces public skepticism regarding the transparency and impartiality of automated decision systems. This highlights the need for an approach that addresses public trust issues during integration of emerging technologies into the justice system. Similarly, the trend analysis points to AI adoption proceeding along varying paths based on a country's administrative needs and legal traditions. However, enhancing procedural efficiency cannot come at the cost of core principles of judicial fairness, accountability, and protection of individual rights. The utilization of big data, cloud computing, natural language processing, and video recognition technologies is facilitating the establishment and operation of "internet courts" and the utilization of ML and cognitive computing is being employed to assist public safety and court personnel in the authentication of evidence and the formulation of trial arguments. In addition, AI is utilized by public security agencies to identify individuals who have violated the law and to conduct interviews with individuals in custody, thereby safeguarding the efficiency and credibility of the entire legal procedure, spanning from apprehension to court proceedings.

Generally, the aforementioned technologies possess the capability to enhance the accessibility of justice, optimize court processes & facilitate legal practitioners in arriving at more informed judgments and as countries like the United States and China gradually integrate AI into their legal frameworks, it is imperative to ensure that the implementation of this technology is accompanied by adequate safeguards and ethical considerations.

ADVANTAGES AND DIFFICULTIES OF AI IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

AI has the potential to bring about significant and deep transformations in the field of law. AI-enabled systems such as the COMPAS system (Malek, 2022) provides tailored automated evaluations pertaining to the likelihood of an individual engaging in further criminal activities and may be utilized for many tasks like the assessment of employment notice periods and the forecasting of results in asylum court proceedings. Specifically, AI could help reduce attorneys’ workloads, improve access to legal services, and enhance efficiency in determining issues like employment status through automated approaches. Additionally, these technologies can serve as valuable assets in comparative jurisprudence, aiding in the examination of algorithms' proficiency in deducing interpretations across varying legal frameworks. Machine learning protocols can deliver tailored projections, pinpoint analogous past scenarios, and support legal professionals and adjudicators in their respective roles in jurisprudence. Per Zhong et al. (2020), the advent of legal frameworks powered by such technologies holds potential in curtailing the duration of legal processes, thus affording advantages to both the judiciary and its participants. Also, the implementation of LegalAI has the possibility of generating efficiencies in terms of time and money by reducing the need for human and other resources typically required for similar operations. This measure has the capacity to accelerate the judicial procedures and improve the effectiveness of the justice system. Moreover, LegalAI has the capability to offer data-centric insights pertaining to the justice system, thereby facilitating its enhancement.

However, there are noticeable gaps around implementing such technologies within the legal system that require further exploration (Rodrigues, 2020). These intelligent systems are adept at projecting precise anticipations concerning legal outcomes within distinct jurisdictions. They're also skilled in scrutinizing the fundamental rationales in judicial decisions, thus shedding light on the fluid and flexible nature of such verdicts. Furthermore, the absence of algorithmic transparency constitutes a major hurdle in scholarly debates pertaining to this technology within legal contexts. Such opaqueness can result in individuals enduring job dismissals, credit refusals, no-fly list inclusions, or benefit denials without sufficient explanation of the fundamental reasons.

Withal, the aforementioned advantages render LegalAI an indispensable tool within the realm of the justice system.

POTENTIAL RISKS OF AI APPLICATIONS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Artificial intelligence lacks the requisite level of intuitive capabilities and comprehension of human behavior exhibited by human beings and this has given rise to significant ethical considerations, primarily centered around the potential manifestation of discrimination and bias. Certain jurisdictions have implemented the substitution of judges with AI, thereby giving rise to concerns regarding human rights, equity, and the establishment of responsibility.

However, AI systems also risk perpetuating discriminatory biases due to issues with training data, algorithmic opacity, and a lack of oversight (Bui & Nguyen, 2023; Rodrigues, 2020). Also, the data and processes utilized in AI applications may inadvertently perpetuate and reinforce preexisting biases and prejudice. In fact, the ethical charter formulated by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice acknowledges the imperative of ensuring that the utilization of AI within the justice system does not lead to any form of discrimination or bias towards specific individuals or groups (Kennedy, 2021), given its tendencies to actually accelerate such prejudices.

Furthermore, there exists a heightened degree of apprehension pertaining to the preservation of data privacy (Wang & Tian, 2020). In order to promote the ethical progression of AI solutions inside the judicial system, it is crucial to conduct ...

The lack of openness in AI algorithms is another issue. Judges, predictive policing, and criminal probation using AI raise concerns about human rights, equality, and responsibility. AI can amplify digital inequalities, preventing those without access to technology from fully benefiting from a wide range of opportunities and facing ethical dilemmas. The use of artificial intelligence in the legal system involves manipulating and assessing sensitive data, causing privacy concerns.

ETHICAL USE OF AI IN LEGAL SYSTEMS

AI is being utilized to a greater extent within the justice system for various purposes, including but not limited to criminal sentencing (Golbin et al., 2021), the interpretation of DNA evidence, and the allocation of Medicaid benefits. Nevertheless, the accountability for the utilization of AI within the justice system rests upon the individuals and collectives responsible for developing and implementing the technology. Hence, to ensure the responsible utilization of AI in the justice system, organizations that implement AI technologies bear a social responsibility to guarantee its intended functionality and responsible deployment. Various governments and industry organizations worldwide have formulated regulatory proposals and guidelines to ensure the responsible advancement and implementation of AI within the justice system. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the failure to deploy AI in a responsible manner can lead to negative consequences such as harm to reputation, imposition of regulatory fines, and potential legal repercussions (Golbin et al., 2021). The legal and AI framework ought to prioritize the examination of the societal contexts in which individuals reside, evaluate algorithmic outcomes in relation to explicitly defined justice objectives, and facilitate enhanced legal problem-solving within a progressively algorithmic society.

Moreover, there exists ambiguity regarding the potential impact of employing novel algorithmic enforcement mechanisms on the enhancement or deterioration of legal accountability and the technical opacity and "black box" characteristics inherent in AI-based tools might further erode overall accountability by rendering agency enforcement decisions even more difficult to comprehend. Hence, it is imperative to prioritize public oversight and input, along with fostering increased social trust in the justice system, in order to ensure responsible utilization of AI within the realm of justice (Barton, 2022).

Also, allegations have been raised about the discriminatory implications associated with algorithms such as COMPAS, PredPol, and ShotSpotter. These concerns mostly revolve on the issue of equity in machine learning, specifically within the realm of computer vision and this issue has garnered significant attention within the realm of the legal system. Therefore, the ethical application of AI in the justice system necessitates prioritizing public oversight and input, along with fostering social trust (Cath et al., 2018). This task necessitates considering the potential biases linked to historical and societal prejudices. Ensuring the effective operation and ethical deployment of AI within a specific context is of utmost importance for organizations.

Sequel to the foregoing, the responsible implementation of AI in law enforcement requires addressing the challenges related to mitigating biases and advancing equity, specifically in the realm of machine learning applications. This is crucial to avoid the perpetuation of discriminatory practices within the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a review of relevant literature, the integration of AI in the justice system exhibits potential for enhancing accessibility, optimizing court processes, and providing valuable support to legal practitioners. There are several significant reasons that make AI a suitable choice for integration into the justice system. Therefore, in order to uphold ethical standards in the use of AI, it is imperative to give precedence to public inspection and input, foster social trust, and take into account the possible ramifications of historical and cultural prejudices. The accomplishment of this goal involves the assessment of algorithmic results in connection to well stated justice goals and the advancement of efficient legal problem-solving procedures. It is also imperative for future research to place emphasis on the development of methodologies and strategies that can effectively identify, mitigate, and eliminate biases in artificial intelligence algorithms, particularly those that originate from historical and cultural influences. The aforementioned pertains to the examination of methods designed to enhance the inclusiveness of data collection, preprocessing, and model training.

REFERENCES:

i. Alarie, B., & Yoon, A. (2018). How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68(supplement 1), 106-124.

ii. Barton, T. (2022). Designing Legal Systems for an Algorithm Society. In Liquid Legal–Humanization and the Law (pp. 83-105). Springer International Publishing.

iii. Buchholtz, G. (2020). Artificial intelligence and legal tech: Challenges to the rule of law. In Regulating artificial intelligence (pp. 175-198).

iv. Bui, T., & Nguyen, V. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence and digital economy on Vietnam’s legal system. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 36(2), 969989.

v. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: the US, EU, and UK approach. Science and engineering ethics, 24, 505-528.

vi. Cohen, M. (2023). The use of AI in legal systems: determining independent contractor vs. employee status. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1-30.

vii. Engel, C., Ebel, P., & Leimeister, J. (2022). Cognitive automation. Electronic Markets, 32(1), 339-350.

viii. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E. (2021). An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Ethics, governance, and policies in artificial intelligence, 19-39.

ix. Golbin, I., Rao, A. S., Hadjarian, A., & Krittman, D. (2020, December). Responsible AI: a primer for the legal community. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 2121-2126). IEEE.

x. Hodson, D. (2019). The role, benefits, and concerns of digital technology in the family justice system. Family Court Review, 57(3), 425-433.

xi. Kauffman, M., & Soares, M. (2020). AI in legal services: new trends in AI-enabled legal services. Service Oriented Computing and Applications, 14(4), 223-226.

xii. Kennedy, R. (2021). The Ethical Implications of Lawtech. In Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society: 20th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2021, Galway, Ireland, September 1–3, 2021, Proceedings 20 (pp. 198-207). Springer International Publishing.

xiii. Lee, T. (2023). The Application of Law as a Key to Understanding Judicial Independence. FIU Law Review, 17(1), 159.

xiv. Malek, M. (2022). Criminal courts’ artificial intelligence: the way it reinforces bias and discrimination. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 233-245.

xv. McGregor, L., Murray, D., & Ng, V. (2019). International human rights law as a framework for algorithmic accountability. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(2), 309-343.

xvi. Noiret, J., & Kampel, M. (2021). Bias and Fairness in Computer Vision Applications of the Criminal Justice System. In 2021 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

xvii. Norton, K. (2020). The Middle Ground: A Meaningful Balance Between the Benefits and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence to Assist with the Justice Gap. University of Miami Law Review, 75, 190.

xviii. Poppe, E. (2019). The Future Is Complicated: AI, Apps & Access to Justice. Oklahoma Law Review, 72, 185.

xix. Re, R., & Solow-Niederman, A. (2019). Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22, 242.

xx. Rodrigues, R. (2020). Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges, and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, 100005.

xxi. Sarker, I. (2022). AI-based modeling: Techniques, applications, and research issues towards automation, intelligent, and smart systems. SN Computer Science, 3(2), 158.

xxii. Schmitz, A. (2019). Measuring "Access to Justice" in the Rush to Digitize. Fordham Law Review, 88, 2381.

xxiii. Schuetz, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2020). The rise of human machines: How cognitive computing systems challenge assumptions of user-system interaction. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(2), 460-482.

xxiv. Stahl, B., & Stahl, B. (2021). Ethical issues of AI. In Artificial Intelligence for a better future: An ecosystem perspective on the ethics of AI and emerging digital technologies (pp. 35-53).

xxv. Vaishya, R. (2020). AI applications for COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 14(4), 337-339.

xxvi. Wang, N. (2020). “Black Box Justice”: Robot Judges and AI-based Judgment Processes in China’s Court System. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) (pp. 58-65). IEEE.

xxvii. Wang, N., & Tian, M. (2022). ‘Intelligent Justice’: AI Implementations in China’s Legal Systems. In Artificial Intelligence and Its Discontents: Critiques from the Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 197-222). Springer International Publishing.

xxviii. Watson, D. (2020). Problematising the rule of law agenda in the SDG context. In The Emerald Handbook of Crime, Justice, and Sustainable Development. Emerald Publishing Limited.

xxix. Yavuz, N., Karkin, N., & Yildiz, M. (2022). E-Justice: a review and agenda for future research. In Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation (pp. 385-414).

xxx. Završnik, A. (2020). Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. In ERA Forum (pp. 567583). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

xxxi. Zeleznikow, J. (2016). Can artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in courts. In IJCA (p. 30).

xxxii. Zhong, H., Xiao, C., Tu, C., Zhang, T., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2020). How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5218-5230).

 

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN LAW AND TECHNOLOGY:

---

¹  Wisdom T. Atuegwu, Editor-in-chief 

²  Favour I. Lazarus, Deputy Editor-in-chief

³  Frankline Nweke, Executive Editor