Artificial Intelligence and Legal Tech: Challenges to the Rule of Law

Buchholtz, Gabriele

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32361-5_8

Gabriele Buchholtz³

6331 Accesses
7 Citations
7 Altmetric

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is shaping our social lives. It is also affecting the process of law-making and the application of law—coined by the term ‘legal tech’. Accordingly, law-as-we-know-it is about to change beyond recognition. Basic tenets of the law, such as accountability, fairness, non-discrimination, autonomy, due process and—above all—the rule of law are at risk. However, so far, little has been said about regulating legal tech, for which there is obviously considerable demand. In this article, it is suggested that we reinvent the rule of law and graft it onto technology by developing the right standards, setting the right defaults and translating fundamental legal principles into hardware and software. In short, ‘legal protection by design’ is needed and its implementation must be required by law—attributing liability where necessary. This would reconcile legal tech with the rule of law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Weizenbaum (1976), p. 115.
2.
Isensee (1990), p. 52.
3.
Eidenmüller (2017); Hartzog (2018), p. 76.
4.
Lessing (2006), p. 3.
5.
Hildebrandt (2018), p. 35.
6.
Grupp (2014), p. 660.
7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm.
8.
Sharma et al. (2018), p. 479.
9.
Schmidt (2016), § 1, para 2.
10.
Gartner IT Glossary (2018).
11.
Medina (2015), p. 1005.
12.
Government Office for Science (UK) (2016), p. 5.
13.
Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (2011).
14.
Frese (2015), p. 2090; Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 3; Mainzer (2016), p. 3; Stiemerling (2015), p. 765.
15.
Pfeifer (2018).
16.
Frese (2015), p. 2090; Stiemerling (2015), p. 765.
17.
Szabo (1994).
18.
Frese (2015), p. 2092.
19.
Legal Technology Journal, Smart Contracts (2017).
20.
Grupp (2014), p. 660; Shackelford and Raymond (2014), p. 615.
21.
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013.
22.
Chowdhry (2016).
23.
Aletras et al. (2016).
24.
For an overview on AI and Law Enforcement see also Rademacher, paras 3–12.
25.
Brown v BCA Trading Ltd [2016] EWHC 1464 (Ch) (17 May 2016).
26.
Rademacher (2017), p. 366.
27.
Angwin et al. (2016) and Dressel and Farid (2018).
28.
Pasquale (2017).
29.
Pasquale (2017).
30.
Kleinberg et al. (2017), p. 2.
31.
Kleinberg et al. (2017).
32.
Susskind (2013).
33.
Wagner (2018), pp. 2–3.
34.
Bostrom (2014); Goertzel (2015), p. 55; La Diega (2018), paras 10 et seq.
35.
Stevens (2017).
36.
Wischmeyer (2018), p. 3.
37.
Tobschall and Kempe (2017), p. 10.
38.
Wagner (2018), p. 3.
39.
Eidenmüller (2017).
40.
See Buchholtz (2017), p. 956.
41.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 26; Hoffmann-Riem (2016a), p. 37.
42.
Riehm (2006), p. 21.
43.
Bydlinski (1982), pp. 395–396.
44.
Becker (2014), p. 19; Großfeld (1985), p. 1577; Isensee (1990), p. 52; Kotsoglou (2014), p. 1101.
45.
Hoffmann-Riem (2016a), pp. 80 et seq.; Kotzur (2014), § 260 para 23.
46.
La Diega (2018), para 11.
47.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 26.
48.
Ehlers (2015), § 3 para 102; Hoffmann-Riem (2016b), p. 5.
49.
Ehlers (2015), § 3 para 102.
50.
Bryde (2015), p. 129; Hoffmann-Riem (2016b), pp. 12 et seq.
51.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), pp. 28–29.
52.
Kranzberg (1986), p. 547.
53.
Martini (2017), p. 1018; Rademacher (2017), p. 389.
54.
Wischmeyer (2018), p. 3.
55.
Wischmeyer (2018), p. 13.
56.
Wischmeyer (2018), p. 3.
57.
Grupp (2014), p. 664.
58.
Goethe (2008), p. 256.
59.
Weber (2002), p. 826.
60.
Jandach (1993), pp. 105–106.
61.
La Diega (2018), para 11.
62.
Engel (2014), p. 1097.
63.
Kotsoglou (2014), p. 455; La Diega (2018), para 11; Pfeifer (2018).
64.
Kotsoglou (2014), p. 453.
65.
Engel (2014), p. 1098; Kotsoglou (2014), pp. 453–454.
66.
La Diega (2018), para 11.
67.
Engel (2014), p. 1097.
68.
Kotsoglou (2014), p. 454.
69.
Buchholtz (2017), p. 958.
70.
Boehme-Neßler (2017), p. 3034.
71.
Medina (2015), p. 1018.
72.
Wischmeyer (2018), pp. 17–18.
73.
Eisenstein (2005); Goody (1986); Hildebrandt (2018), pp. 12–35; Ong (1982).
74.
Schmidt (2016), § 1 para 1 ff.
75.
O’Hara (2017), p. 101.
76.
For details see La Diega (2018), para 31 ff.
77.
Porter (1995).
78.
Kitchin (2017), p. 18.
79.
Montfort et al. (2012), p. 3.
80.
Pasquale (2017), p. 5.
81.
La Diega (2018), para 18.
82.
Kitchin (2017), p. 18.
83.
Weizenbaum (1976), p. 115.
84.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 31; see Wischmeyer, paras 3 et seq.
85.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rule-of-law.
86.
Hildebrandt (2015), p. 10.
87.
La Diega (2018).
88.
State of Wisconsin v. Eric Loomis, 7. 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
89.
Eric Loomis v. State of Wisconsin No. 16-6387.
90.
La Diega (2018), para 117.
91.
Martini (2017), p. 1018.
92.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 36.
93.
Cf. Marsch and Rademacher, paras 15–18.
94.
Bundesverfassungsgericht 1 BvR 209, 269/83 ‘Volkszählung’ (15 October 1983), BVerfGE 65, p. 1.
95.
See also Marsch, paras 20–28.
96.
Cf. Wischmeyer, paras 3 et seq.
97.
Altman (2015).
98.
Goodman and Flaxman (2017).
99.
Cf. Tischbirek, paras 3–13.
100.
Angwin et al. (2016).
101.
Dressel and Farid (2018).
102.
Goodman and Flaxman (2017).
103.
La Diega (2018), para 116.
104.
Martini (2017), p. 1018.
105.
See Tischbirek, para 25.
106.
Scherzberg (2004), p. 226.
107.
Hildebrandt (2017), p. 308.
108.
See Hartzog (2018), pp. 8, 21 et seq.
109.
Hartzog (2018), pp. 5 et seq.
110.
Hartzog (2018), pp. 11–12.
111.
See also Hartzog (2018), pp. 86 et seq.
112.
Hartzog (2018), p. 6.
113.
Wischmeyer (2018), p. 22.
114.
Kuner (2012), p. 1.
115.
Martini (2017), p. 1020; cf. Wischmeyer, para 46.
116.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2018), p. 21.
117.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2018), pp. 9–10.
118.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2018), p. 10.
119.
Hoffmann-Riem (2017), p. 36.
120.
Martini (2017), p. 1020; see Wischmeyer, para 25.
121.
Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2013), pp. 179 et seq.
122.
Martini (2017), p. 1020.
123.
Martini (2017), p. 1021.
124.
Martini (2017), p. 1021.
125.
Stevens (2017); see Wischmeyer, para 41.
126.
Goodman and Flaxman (2017).
127.
Shackelford and Raymond (2014), p. 633.
128.
Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), p. XV.
129.
Martini (2017), p. 1021.
130.
Blind (2012), p. 391; Martini (2017), p. 1025.
131.
Hildebrandt (2017), p. 311.
132.
Medina (2015), p. 1018.
133.
Medina (2015), p. 1018.
134.
Medina (2015), p. 1018.
135.
See Hartzog (2018), p. 9.

References

Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V (2016) Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. Peer J Comp Sci 2:e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
Article Google Scholar
Altman A (2015) Discrimination. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University, Stanford. Winter 2016 edn. plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/discrimination. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Google Scholar
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L (2016) Machine bias. ProPublica, New York. www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Google Scholar
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2018) Guidelines on automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679, 17/EN, WP251rev.01, adopted on 3 October 2017, as last revised and adopted on 6 February 2018
Google Scholar
Becker C (2014) Was bleibt? Recht und Postmoderne. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Book Google Scholar
Blind K (2012) The influence of regulations on innovation: a quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Res Policy 41:391–400
Article Google Scholar
Boehme-Neßler V (2017) Die Macht der Algorithmen und die Ohnmacht des Rechts. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 42:3031–3037
Google Scholar
Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence – paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Bryde BO (2015) Richterrecht und Gesetzesbindung. Sozialrecht 5:128–132
Google Scholar
Buchholtz G (2017) Legal Tech – Chancen und Risiken der digitalen Rechtsanwendung. Juristische Schulung 2017:955–960
Google Scholar
Bydlinski F (1982) Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff. Springer, Wien
Book Google Scholar
Chowdhry A (2016) Law Firm BakerHostetler hires a ‘digital attorney’ namend Ross. Forbes, New York. www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2016/05/17/law-firm-bakerhostetler-hires-a-digital-attorney-named-ross. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Google Scholar
Dressel J, Farid H (2018) The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci Adv 4(1):eaao5580. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
Article Google Scholar
Dreyfus H, Dreyfus SE (1986) Mind over machine. Free Press, New York
Google Scholar
Ehlers D (2015) Verwaltungsrecht. In: Ehlers D, Pünder H (eds) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 15th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, § 3
Chapter Google Scholar
Eidenmüller H (2017) The rise of robots and the law of humans. ZeuP 2017:765–777
Google Scholar
Eisenstein EL (2005) The printing revolution in early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Engel M (2014) Algorithmisierte Rechtsfindung als juristische Arbeitshilfe. JuristenZeitung 69:1096–1100
Article Google Scholar
Frese Y (2015) Recht im zweiten Maschinenzeitalter. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 68:2090–2092
Google Scholar
Gartner IT Glossary (2018) ‘Big Data’. www.gartner.com/it-glossary/big-data. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Goertzel B (2015) Superintelligence: fears, promises and potentials. J Evol Technol 24(2):55–87
Google Scholar
Goethe JW (2008) Das Göttliche. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, pp 258–258
Google Scholar
Goodman B, Flaxman S (2017) European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘Right to Explanation’. AI Magazine 38(3):50–57. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741
Article Google Scholar
Goody J (1986) The logic of writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Government Office for Science (UK) (2016) Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the future of decision making. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566075/gs-16-19-artificial-intelligence-ai-report.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Großfeld T (1985) Sprache, Recht, Demokratie. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 28:1577–1586
Google Scholar
Grupp M (2014) Legal Tech – Impulse für Streitbeilegung und Rechtsdienstleistung. Anwaltsblatt 2014:660–665
Google Scholar
Hartzog W (2018) Privacy’s blueprint. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Hildebrandt M (2015) Smart technologies and the End(s) of Law, novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Google Scholar
Hildebrandt M (2017) Saved by design? The case of legal protection by design. Nanoethics 11:307–311
Article Google Scholar
Hildebrandt M (2018) Law as computation in the Era of artificial legal intelligence. Speaking law to the power of statistics. Toronto Law J 68:12–35
Article Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Riem W (2016a) Innovation und Recht – Recht und Innovation. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Book Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Riem W (2016b) Außerjuridisches Wissen, Alltagstheorien und Heuristiken im Verwaltungsrecht. Die Verwaltung 49:1–23
Article Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Riem W (2017) Verhaltenssteuerung durch Algorithmen – Eine Herausforderung für das Recht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 142:1–42
Article Google Scholar
Isensee J (1990) Unsere Sprache: Die Sicht des Juristen. In: Großfeld B (ed) Unsere Sprache. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 52–78
Google Scholar
Jandach T (1993) Juristische Expertensysteme. Springer, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Kitchin R (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf Commun Soc 20(1):14–29
Article Google Scholar
Kleinberg J, Lakkaraju H, Leskovec J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S (2017) Human decisions and machine predictions, National Bureau of economic research. Working Paper 23180. www.nber.org/papers/w23180. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Kotsoglou KN (2014) Subsumtionsautomat 2.0 reloaded? – Zur Unmöglichkeit der Rechtsprüfung durch Laien. Juristenzeitung 69:1100–1103
Article Google Scholar
Kotzur M (2014) Thematik des Verfassungsgesetzes. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts XII, 3rd edn. Müller, Heidelberg, § 260
Google Scholar
Kranzberg M (1986) Technology and history: Kranzberg’s Laws. Technol Cult 27(3):544–560
Article Google Scholar
Kuner C (2012) The European Commission’s proposed data protection regulation: a Copernican revolution in European data protection law. Bloomberg BNA Privacy and Security Law Report, pp. 1–15
Google Scholar
La Diega GN (2018) Against the dehumanisation of decision-making – algorithmic decisions at the crossroads of intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information. J Inellect Prop Inf Technol Electron Commerce Law 9(1):3–34
Google Scholar
Legal Technology Journal, Smart Contracts (2017) Von der Smart Factory zum Smart Contract. legal-technology.net/von-smart-factory-zu-smart-contract. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Lessing L (2006) Code: and other law of cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York
Google Scholar
Mainzer K (2016) Künstliche Intelligenz – wann übernehmen die Maschinen? Springer, Heidelberg
Book Google Scholar
Martini M (2017) Algorithmen als Herausforderung für die Rechtsordnung. JuristenZeitung 72:1017–1072
Article Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data. John Murray, London
Google Scholar
Medina E (2015) Rethinking algorithmic regulation. Kybernetes 44:1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2015-0052
Article Google Scholar
Montfort N, Baudoin P, Bell J, Bogost I, Douglass J, Marino MC, Mateas M, Reas C, Sample M, Vawter N (2012) 10 PRINT CHR$ (205.5 + RND (1));: GOTO 10. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Google Scholar
O’Hara K (2017) Smart contracts – dumb idea. IEEE Internet Comput 21(2):97–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2017.48
Article Google Scholar
Ong WJ (1982) Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Pasquale F (2017) Secret algorithms threaten the rule of law. MIT Technology Review. www.technologyreview.com/s/608011/secret-algorithms-threaten-the-rule-of-law. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Pfeifer J (2018) The data-driven lawyer and the future of legal technology. www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/01/the-data-driven-lawyer. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Book Google Scholar
Rademacher T (2017) Predictive Policing im deutschen Polizeirecht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 142:366–416
Article Google Scholar
Riehm T (2006) Abwägungsentscheidungen in der praktischen Rechtsanwendung. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Scherzberg A (2004) Risikosteuerung durch Verwaltungsrecht – Ermöglichung oder Begrenzung von Innovationen. Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 63:214–263
Google Scholar
Schmidt (2016) Programmierung, Dokumentation und Test von Software. In: Auer-Reinsdorff A, Conrad I (eds) Handbuch für IT- und Datenschutzrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, München, § 1
Google Scholar
Shackelford SJ, Raymond AH (2014) Building the virtual courthouse: ethical considerations for design, implementation, and regulation in the World of ODR. Wisconsin Law Rev 3:615–657
Google Scholar
Sharma S, Mishra P, Mittal M (2018) S-Array: high scalable parallel sorting algorithm. In: Mittal M, Balas VE, Hemanth DJ, Kumar R (eds) Data intensive computing applications for big data. IOS Press BV, Amsterdam
Google Scholar
Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (2011) What is artificial intelligence? www.aisb.org.uk/public-engagement/what-isai. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Stevens Y (2017) The promises and perils of artificial intelligence: why human rights and the rule of law matter. medium.com/@ystvns/the-promises-and-perils-of-artificial-intelligence-why-human-rights-norms-and-the-rule-of-law-40c57338e806. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Stiemerling O (2015) Künstliche Intelligenz – Automatisierung geistiger Arbeit, Big Data und das Internet der Dinge. Computer und Recht 31(12):762–765
Article Google Scholar
Susskind R (2013) Tomorrow’s Lawyers: an introduction to your future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Szabo N (1994) Smart contracts. www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Tobschall D, Kempe J (2017) Der Deutsche Legal-Tech-Markt. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – Sonderheft: Innovationen & Legal Tech, pp 10–13
Google Scholar
Wagner J (2018) Legal Tech und Legal Robots: Der Wandel im Rechtsmarkt durch neue Technologien und künstliche Intelligenz. Springer, Wiesbaden
Book Google Scholar
Weber M (2002) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 5th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason: from judgement to calculation. W. H. Freeman & Co, Oxford
Google Scholar
Wischmeyer T (2018) Regulierung intelligenter Systeme. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 143:1–66
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany
Gabriele Buchholtz

Authors

Gabriele Buchholtz
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Buchholtz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
Thomas Wischmeyer
Faculty of Law, University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany
Timo Rademacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buchholtz, G. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Legal Tech: Challenges to the Rule of Law. In: Wischmeyer, T., Rademacher, T. (eds) Regulating Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32361-5_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32361-5_8
Published: 30 November 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32360-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32361-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics