Legal advice privilege and artificial legal intelligence: Can robots give privileged legal advice?

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.1177/1365712719862296
M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell
{"title":"Legal advice privilege and artificial legal intelligence: Can robots give privileged legal advice?","authors":"M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1177/1365712719862296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal professional privilege entitles parties to legal proceedings to object to disclosing communications. The form of legal professional privilege that is now commonly known as ‘legal advice privilege’ attaches to communications between a client and its lawyers in connection with the provision of legal advice. The provision of legal advice increasingly involves the use of technology across a wide spectrum of activities with varying degrees of human interaction or supervision. Use of technology ranges from a lawyer conducting a keyword search of a legal database to legal advice given online by fully automated systems. With technology becoming more integrated into legal practice, an important issue that has not been explored is whether legal advice privilege attaches to communications between client and legal services provider regardless of the degree of human involvement and even if the ‘lawyer’ might constitute a fully automated advice algorithm. In essence, our central research question is: If a robot gives legal advice, is that advice privileged? This article makes an original and distinctive contribution to discourse in this area through offering novel perspectives on and solutions to a question which has not previously been investigated by legal academics.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"23 1","pages":"422 - 439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712719862296","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719862296","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Legal professional privilege entitles parties to legal proceedings to object to disclosing communications. The form of legal professional privilege that is now commonly known as ‘legal advice privilege’ attaches to communications between a client and its lawyers in connection with the provision of legal advice. The provision of legal advice increasingly involves the use of technology across a wide spectrum of activities with varying degrees of human interaction or supervision. Use of technology ranges from a lawyer conducting a keyword search of a legal database to legal advice given online by fully automated systems. With technology becoming more integrated into legal practice, an important issue that has not been explored is whether legal advice privilege attaches to communications between client and legal services provider regardless of the degree of human involvement and even if the ‘lawyer’ might constitute a fully automated advice algorithm. In essence, our central research question is: If a robot gives legal advice, is that advice privileged? This article makes an original and distinctive contribution to discourse in this area through offering novel perspectives on and solutions to a question which has not previously been investigated by legal academics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律咨询特权与人工法律智能:机器人能提供特权法律咨询吗?
法律专业特权赋予诉讼当事人反对披露通信的权利。法律专业特权的形式现在通常被称为“法律建议特权”,它是指客户与其律师之间就提供法律建议进行的沟通。提供法律咨询越来越多地涉及在广泛的活动中使用技术,这些活动具有不同程度的人类互动或监督。技术的使用范围从律师在法律数据库中进行关键字搜索到由全自动系统在线提供法律建议。随着技术越来越多地融入法律实践,一个尚未探讨的重要问题是,无论人类参与程度如何,即使“律师”可能构成全自动建议算法,客户和法律服务提供商之间的沟通是否具有法律咨询特权。从本质上讲,我们研究的核心问题是:如果机器人提供法律建议,该建议是否享有特权?这篇文章通过对法律学者以前没有研究过的问题提出新颖的观点和解决方案,对这一领域的话语做出了原创和独特的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1