Anyone who enters a courtroom, legal office or lecture hall today cannot ignore it: tech is everywhere. The impact of digital technology on the legal field is undeniable. But how do information and communication technologies influence legal research, education and practice? What opportunities and challenges lie ahead for legal professionals? Will smart chatbots eventually replace them? And how new are these issues? Julia Krämer, PhD candidate in Empirical Legal Studies, Koen Swinnen, Professor of Private Law and Public and Private Interests, Evert Stamhuis, Professor of Law and Innovation, and Fenneke van der Grinten, Learning and Innovation Team (LIT), sit down and discuss key developments in the field of law and technology. Four innovators, one table, and several propositions - which, by the way, did not involve a chatbot.
Seated at the table on the right is Stamhuis, who spearheaded the brand-new Law & Technology Master's programme and has always been interested in legal technology issues: "It is new and exciting; more exciting than murder and manslaughter." Sitting next to him is Swinnen. He is currently directing the SSH-Breed Sector Plan, an interdisciplinary project of six Erasmus University schools on the social effects of digitalisation. For Swinnen, property and insolvency law was an "early love", and his interest in data has increased over the years. Krämer, the third at the table, once became fascinated by legal tech because of her aunt's cleaning robot - which was controlled via an app and sent user data to a foreign server without permission. "How is that possible, and what about our privacy?" she wondered. Krämer has since been researching privacy regulations on mobile platforms such as Google Play, programmed her web scraper to collect app data, and is a regular guest lecturer at Stamhuis' and Swinnen's lectures. To her left is Van der Grinten. She advises and helps with educational innovation, and, according to Stamhuis, she is also the 'idea battery' for education.
The rise of digital technologies has profoundly changed the legal field.
If you ask Swinnen or Stamhuis, you may skip 'digital' in the headline: "Every social change changes the legal field. When electricity came, we had to frame it. When computers came, we dove into software protection and property relations. There is constant movement." According to Krämer, this movement has accelerated since the advent of internet giants and, with them, surveillance capitalism. "Companies collect and sell personal data, which affects fundamental rights and raises questions about the impact of big tech on public spaces and research. For example, consider a search through Google Scholar, which Google owns." Stamhuis does not think this power issue is entirely new: "Kluwer used to have a monopoly on case law. That was not problematic, but it was a dominant position." However, the extent of competition between tech companies is new. According to Stamhuis and Van der Grinten, this is why the power of critical education is needed. "We teach students what questions to ask. We have become more critical. Where the dominance and intensity of big tech increases, our awareness increases along with it."
"There is technology - that is a fact. But how do we want to deal with it? That is up to us."
Fenneke van der Grinten
Legislation cannot keep up with the speed of technological developments and that is a bad thing
A hard 'no' for Stamhuis. "Students may not leave my teaching if they endorse this", he laughs. "There are plenty of examples where legislation led the way or encouraged change." Swinnen sees it differently: legislation must first lag and observe phenomena at an appropriate distance. "Moreover, in other cases, innovation is impossible without legislation." He points to deep brain stimulation, a neurological treatment that applies the brakes until liability rules are identified. Krämer hooks up: "Big companies use innovation to argue against new regulation. You can see that with the EU AI Act. But many researchers are precisely saying that regulation is needed for sustainable innovation." And from an educational perspective? "We are trying to keep educational regulation in step with the development of students' use of ChatGPT", Stamhuis says as he turns to Van der Grinten: "That is exactly the kind of integration of new technology within education that LIT is working on and supporting us in."
Integrating technology into law students' education is crucial for their future careers.
Van der Grinten agrees with the statement and explains: "Our academic colleagues wonder what students need to know (about technology) to be prepared for professional practice. Practically speaking, there are many ways to train students. Teachers no longer stand alone in front of the classroom but are supported by a digital environment such as Canvas. How do we utilise these to their full potential? We believe the proactive integration of tech in education and student's perspective is essential. We think about what technological developments in education and the field can mean for our students: What does ChatGPT do with testing, for example, and what knowledge do our students need to have to be ready after they studied for a work field in which tech plays such a big role?", Van der Grinten says. According to Krämer, tech reality also shapes legal reality. "Not every student needs to program, but they need to understand how an algorithm works and where the limits of AI lie." Stamhuis compliments her: "We do not want to deliver students who are playthings of software providers but critical professionals." Both also point to providers' responsibility, which must sometimes be enforced through European regulations. Van der Grinten sees Krämer's doctoral research on data protection as a perfect example: "Because what does the digital playing field look like at all? And how do we protect the people moving within it?"
The legal expert will be replaced by artificial intelligence in the future.
At the table, they shake their heads. Krämer and Swinnen are convinced that a particular human measure remains irreplaceable. "Think of principles such as justice, reasonableness, fairness and proportionality. These rely on human judgement." However, according to Krämer, AI will facilitate specific work steps. "Yes, such as search processes", Stamhuis adds. "However, having all tasks done by tech and cutting people out could lead to regression. We must ask ourselves: what problem are we solving with this?" Swinnen nods in agreement: "Where can it take us?' and Van der Grinten concludes: "Technology is here - that is a fact. But how do we want to deal with it? That is up to us."
So, legal tech is anything but an inconvenient truth for these four. Instead, it is a partner in a tango in which some steps have already been taken, and others are yet to be invented. One thing is sure: the law is constantly evolving.
