Legal advice privilege and artificial legal intelligence: Can robots give privileged legal advice?
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Spahn argues non-lawyers using AI to provide legal advice or prepare documents for third parties could violate the UPL.
“Applying this rule to AI systems, Spahn argues non-lawyers using AI to provide legal advice or prepare documents for third parties could violate the UPL [79]”
From (A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advice (2024) · cites this paper as [79]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Do We Need New Legal Personhood in the Age of Robots and AI?
van Genderen, R. V. D. H. (2018) · Perspectives in law, business and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_2 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The Case for Robot Disobedience
Briggs, G., & Scheutz, M. J. (2016) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0117-44 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Devins, C., Felin, T., Kauffman, S. B., & Koppl, R. G. (2017) · Scholarship @ Cornell Law (Cornell University) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Marcus, R. K. (2009) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 6 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cheong, I., Xia, K., Feng, K. J. K., Chen, Q. Z., & Zhang, A. X. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659048 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Symbiosis with artificial intelligence via the prism of law, robots, and society
Karnouskos, S. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-021-09289-1 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Robot application and occupational injuries: Are robots necessarily safer?
Yang, S., Zhong, Y., Feng, D., Li, R. Y. M., Shao, X., & Liu, W. (2021) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105623 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Technology Acceptance Model for Lawyer Robots with AI: A Quantitative Survey
Xu, N., Wang, K., & Lin, C.-Y. (2022) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00850-1 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Afroogh, S., Mostafavi, A., Akbari, A., Pouresmaeil, Y., Goudarzi, S., Hajhosseini, F., & Rasoulkhani, K. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00309-1 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Bhatt, H., Bahuguna, R., Singh, R., Gehlot, A., Akram, S. V., Priyadarshi, N., & Twala, B. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122211687 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Yu, S., Hu, M., Li, J., & Yan, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1445746 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Fornasier, M. D. O. (2021) · Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR · doi:10.5380/rfdufpr.v66i2.73458 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
LAWBOTS: Utilization of AI Chatbots for Legal Advising in the Philippines
Sedilla, R. B., Despues, A. E. T., Ty, K. C. O., Ochoa, C. R., Wong, L. M., & Samonte, M. J. C. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Information, Communication and Networks (ICICN) · doi:10.1109/icicn62625.2024.10761649 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Chesterman, S. A. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009047081.011
- Authors
- Stockdale, M., & Mitchell, R.
- Affiliations
- Northumbria University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stockdale, Michael
- Venue
- The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-07-16
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 422-439
- ISSN
- 1365-7127 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-5572
- OpenAlex
- W2962079268
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (publishedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
- Keywords
- legal advice privilege, legal professional privilege, robots, legal technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
