AI In The Courtroom: Will We Trade The Rule Of Law For Efficiency's Sake? - Above the Law

"It's not only law firms and legal departments that are adopting GenAI systems without fully understanding what they can and cannot do - court systems may also be tempted to adopt these tools to short circuit workloads in the face of limited resources. And that poses some risks and concerns to the rule of law, a notion that hinges on accuracy, fairness, and public perception."

"UNESCO is an agency that attempts to foster international cooperation in various fields. It often sets standards, develops programs, and creates global networks. One such network is devoted to the development of Guidelines for the use of AI in courts. A recent UNESCO publication discussed the programs being developed to assist courts and tribunals in the use of AI. According to the publication, ""

"Technology is in the hands of private companies that have little concern for judicial independence. These companies' primary motive is making a profit, not ensuring fairness and transparency in judicial decisions Relatedly, there is the opportunity for subtle influence and manipulation of judicial decisions. As the publication puts it, "Even supportive AI functions, such as document summarization, can shape the facts considered in judgments. When judges use AI outputs, its dataset limitations can inadvertently affect legal reasoning." What happens if that occurs?"

Courts and judges may adopt GenAI tools to reduce workloads, but such adoption can undermine accuracy, fairness, and public trust central to the rule of law. Private companies that control AI technologies prioritize profit and may lack incentives to protect judicial independence or transparent decision-making. Even seemingly supportive functions like document summarization can frame the facts considered by judges and introduce dataset limitations into legal reasoning. UNESCO develops Guidelines and programs to advise courts on designing, procuring, and using AI to strengthen access to justice, protect human rights, and preserve judicial independence. These measures aim to mitigate risks and preserve trust in judicial outcomes.

Read at Above the Law