Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surveying Judges about artificial intelligence: profession, judicial adjudication, and legal principles

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is set to bring changes to legal systems. These technologies may have positive practical implications when it comes to access, efficiency, and accuracy in Justice. However, there are still many uncertainties and challenges associated with the implementation of AI in the legal space. In this research, we surveyed Judges on critical challenges related to the Judging Profession in the AI paradigm; Automated Adjudication; and Legal Principles. Our results suggest that (i) Judges are hesitant about changes in their profession. They signal the need for adequate training that fosters legal literacy in AI, but are less open to changes in legal writing or their social and institutional role; (ii) Judges believe higher levels of automation only lead to fair outcomes if used in earlier phases of adjudication; (iii) Judges believe and are concerned about AI leading to Techno-Legal Positivism; and (iv) Judges consider that Legal AI technologies may have a positive impact in some legal principles, as long as everyone has equal access to those technologies and cybersecurity and judge on the loop safeguards are in place; and (v) Judges are strongly concerned about the de-humanization of Justice. They consider that assessing evidence, analyzing arguments, and deciding on a legal case should be inherently human. By surveying these practitioners, we aim to foster a responsible, inclusive, and transparent innovation in Justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Notes

  1. European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2021.

  2. Case identification: ECLI:PT:TRP:2017:355.15.2GAFLG.P1.

  3. https://www.qualtrics.com.

  4. The neutral category encompasses comments that emphasized both positive and negative impacts as well as general comments related to Legal AI.

  5. In this reflection we include comments written by participants about the impact of AI in core legal principles—full comments may be found in the appendix.

References

  • Aarts M-C (2020) The rise of synthetic judges: if we dehumanize the judiciary, whose hand will hold the gavel? Washburn LJ 60:511

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gans JS, Goldfarb A (2019) Artificial intelligence: the ambiguous labor market impact of automating prediction. J Econ Perspect 33(2):31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alarie B, Niblett A, Yoon AH (2018) How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law. Univ Toronto Law J 68(supplement 1):106–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo T, Helberger N, Kruikemeier S, De Vreese CH (2020) In ai we trust? perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI Soc 35:611–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JJ (2018) 2018: A legal research odyssey: Artificial intelligence as disruptor. Law Libr J 110:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal N, Sharma A, Singh R (2019) A review on the application of deep learning in legal domain. In: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations: 15th IFIP WG 12.5 International Conference, AIAI 2019, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, May 24–26, 2019, Proceedings 15, pp 374–381. Springer

  • Barysė D (2022a) Do we need more technologies in courts? mapping concerns for legal technologies in courts. In: Mapping Concerns for Legal Technologies in Courts (September 6, 2022)

  • Barysė D (2022b) People’s attitudes towards technologies in courts. Laws 11(5):71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barysė D, Sarel R (2023) Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated? Artificial intelligence and law, pp 1–30

  • Bielen S, Peeters L, Marneffe W, Vereeck L (2018) Backlogs and litigation rates: testing congestion equilibrium across European judiciaries. Int Rev Law Econ 53:9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks C, Gherhes C, Vorley T (2020) Artificial intelligence in the legal sector: pressures and challenges of transformation. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 13(1):135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke KS (2020) Procedural fairness can guide court leaders. Ct Rev 56:76

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke K, Leben S (2007) Procedural fairness: a key ingredient in public satisfaction, 44 Court Review 4

  • Campbell RW (2020) Artificial intelligence in the courtroom: the delivery of justice in the age of machine learning. Colo Tech LJ 18:323

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrel A (2018) Legal intelligence through artificial intelligence requires emotional intelligence: a new competency model for the 21st century legal professional. Ga St UL Rev 35:1153

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen BM, Stremitzer A, Tobia K (2022) Having your day in robot court. Harv J Law Technol 36(1):127–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis JP (2019) Artificial wisdom? a potential limit on ai in law (and elsewhere). Okla L Rev 72:51

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1971) Social rules and legal theory. Yale LJ 81:855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2013) Taking rights seriously. A &C Black

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyevre A (2020) Text-mining for lawyers: how machine learning techniques can advance our understanding of legal discourse. Erasmus Law Rev (Forthcoming)

  • Edwards CP, Miller MK (2019) An assessment of judges’ self-reported experiences of secondary traumatic stress. Juv Fam Court J 70(2):7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eltis K (2014) Does avoiding judicial isolation outweigh the risks related to “professional death by facebook’’? Laws 3(4):636–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjelstul JC, Gabel M, Carrubba CJ (2023) The timely administration of justice: using computational simulations to evaluate institutional reforms at the CJEU. J Eur Public Policy 30(12):2643–2664

  • Helberger N, Araujo T, de Vreese CH (2020) Who is the fairest of them all? public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making. Comput Law Secur Rev 39:105456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janoski-Haehlen E, Starnes S (2020) The ghost in the machine: artificial intelligence in law schools. DuQ L Rev 58:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Shen FX (2020) Teaching law and artificial intelligence. Min JL Sci Tech 22:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski J (2011) Diffusion of innovation theory. Can J Nurs Inform 6(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Land MK, Aronson JD (2020) Human rights and technology: new challenges for justice and accountability. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 16:223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockey S, Gillespie N, Holm D, Someh IA (2021) A review of trust in artificial intelligence: challenges, vulnerabilities and future directions

  • Ma B, Hou Y (2021) Artificial intelligence empowers the integrated development of legal education: Challenges and responses. Future Human Image 16:43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovic M (2019) Rise of the robot lawyers. Ariz L Rev 61:325

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinho A, Kroesen M, Chorus C (2021) A healthy debate: exploring the views of medical doctors on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Artif Intell Med 121:102190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore MS (1996) Legal principles revisited. Iowa L Rev 82:867

    Google Scholar 

  • Muniz-Arguelles L, Fraticelli-Torres M (1985) Selection and training of judges in Spain, France, West Germany, and England. BC Int’l Comp L Rev 8:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Osbeck MK (2011) What is" good legal writing" and why does it matter? Drexel L Rev 4:417

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Bessant JR, Heintz M (2013) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Park I, Choo T, Na C (2022) Burnout in the da’s office: correlates and coping strategies among male and female prosecutors. Int J Law Crime Just 69:100533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto AG (2021) A construção da identidade da mulher num acórdão sobre violência doméstica

  • Pollman T (2001) Building a tower of babel or building a discipline-talking about legal writing. MArq L Rev 85:887

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponto J (2015) Understanding and evaluating survey research. J Adv Pract Oncol 6(2):168

    MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Poppe EST (2019) The future is complicated: Ai, apps & access to justice. Okla L Rev 72:185

    Google Scholar 

  • Re RM, Solow-Niederman A (2019) Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stan Tech L Rev 22:242

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid M (2018) A call to arms: why and how lawyers and law schools should embrace artificial intelligence. U Tol L Rev 50:477

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiling AD (2020) Courts and artificial intelligence. In: IJCA, volume 11, page 1. HeinOnline

  • Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosili NAK, Zakaria NH, Hassan R, Kasim S, Rose FZC, Sutikno T (2021) A systematic literature review of machine learning methods in predicting court decisions. IAES Int J Artif Intell 10(4):1091

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothmann S, Rossouw E (2020) Well-being of judges: a review of quantitative and qualitative studies. SA J Ind Psychol 46(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan F (2021) Rage against the machine? Incorporating legal tech into legal education. Law Teach 55(3):392–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoni de Sio F, Van den Hoven J (2018) Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: a philosophical account. Front Robot AI 5:15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Savelka J, Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2020) A law school course in applied legal analytics and ai. Law Context A Socio-Leg J 37:134

    Google Scholar 

  • Simshaw D (2018) Ethical issues in robo-lawyering: the need for guidance on developing and using artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Hastings LJ 70:173

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T (2018) Judge v. robot: artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSWLJ 41:1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spáč S (2018) Recruiting European judges in the age of judicial self-government. Ger Law J 19(7):2077–2104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2020) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. In: Maynard A, Stilgoe J (eds) The ethics of nanotechnology, geoengineering and clean energy. Routledge, pp 347–359

  • Surden H (2014) Machine learning and law. Wash Law Rev 89:87

    Google Scholar 

  • van Boom WH, Desmet P, Mascini P (2018) Empirical legal research: charting the terrain. In: van Boom WH, Desmet P, Mascini P (eds) Empirical legal research in action. Edward Elgar Publishing

  • Von Schomberg R (2011) Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. (Available at SSRN 2436399)

  • Vučić F (2023) Changes in legal education in the digital society of artificial intelligence. In: International Conference on Digital Transformation in Education and Artificial Intelligence Application, pp 159–176. Springer

  • Xu N, Wang K-J (2021) Adopting robot lawyer? the extending artificial intelligence robot lawyer technology acceptance model for legal industry by an exploratory study. J Manag Organ 27(5):867–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin G, Themeli E, Stamhuis E, Philipsen S, Puntoni S (2023) Perceptions of justice by algorithms. Artif Intell Law 31(2):269–292

  • Zalnieriute M (2021) Open justice and technology: Courts, tribunals and artificial intelligence. (Submission to NSW Law Reform Commission Open Justice Review (2021))

  • Završnik A (2020) Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. In: ERA forum, volume 20, pp 567–583. Springer

  • Zimmerman IM (2000) Isolation in the judicial career. Court Rev 36:1–6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author makes a special acknowledgment to Sandra dos Reis Luís, João Ferreira, and João Miguel Mendes for their collaboration in the development of the survey in Portuguese Judicial Courts. The author acknowledges Sandra dos Reis Luís and João Miguel Mendes for the deployment of the survey. The author also thanks and presents her sincere appreciation to the Judges who participated in the testing sessions of the survey (Ana Chambel, Cátia Santos, Filipe Aveiro Marques, Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues, Georgina Rodrigues, Jão Cura Mariano, Maria Olinda Garcia, and Pedro Soares de Albergaria). The author acknowledges the Supreme Court of Justice, in the person of its President Henrique Araújo for the collaboration in the research project. Finally, the author also acknowledges and thanks all the Judges who completed the survey.

Curmudgeon Corner

Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Whilst the drive for super-human intelligence promotes potential benefits to wider society, it also raises deep concerns of existential risk, thereby highlighting the need for an ongoing conversation between technology and society. At the core of Curmudgeon concern is the question: What is it to be human in the age of the AI machine? -Editor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Data Intensive Studies Center, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, USA

    Andreia Martinho

Authors
  1. Andreia Martinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreia Martinho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (pdf 186 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinho, A. Surveying Judges about artificial intelligence: profession, judicial adjudication, and legal principles. AI & Soc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01869-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01869-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation