Robot Lawyers and the Ethical Challenges of the Legal Profession in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47268/balobe.v5i2.3116Keywords:
Robot Lawyer, Professional Ethics, Artificial IntelligenceAbstract
Introduction: The ethical dilemma that arises due to the integration of artificial intelligence into legal services through the emergence of robot lawyers.
Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this article is to examine the ethical implications of robot lawyers and evaluate the adequacy of current legal professional standards in addressing challenges posed by artificial intelligence in legal practice.
Methods of the Research: This study uses normative legal research with a conceptual and statutory approach, focusing on the analysis of existing legal ethics frameworks and professional responsibility principles to assess their relevance and adequacy in regulating the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice.
Results of the Research: The findings of this study show that the emergence of robot lawyers significantly challenges the ethical foundations of the legal profession, particularly concerning competence, confidentiality, independence, and accountability. Current legal ethics frameworks were designed with human practitioners in mind, leaving regulatory gaps when applied to AI-driven legal services. The study highlights the need for a revised ethical paradigm that addresses the limitations of existing rules and accommodates the unique attributes of artificial intelligence. The novelty of this research lies in its critical analysis of the intersection between legal ethics and AI technology, offering a conceptual framework for ethical governance of robot lawyers.Downloads
Citation Metrics
References
American Bar Association. “Formal Opinion 477R: Securing Communication of Protected Client Information.” ABA Journal, 2017.
Angwin, Julia, et al. “Machine Bias.” ProPublica, May 23, 2016.
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.
Ayu, Lestari. “Tantangan Advokat Digital di Indonesia.” Jurnal Advokasi dan Hukum 14, no. 3 (2022): 215–230.
Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification.” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81 (2018): 1–15.
CEPEJ. European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2018.
European Commission. 2021. “Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence.” Official Journal of the European Union, April 21. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206.
European Parliament. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union, 2016.
Fauzi, Ahmad. “Dampak Kecerdasan Buatan terhadap Relasi Klien.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 18, no. 1 (2022): 60–75.
Fauzi, Ahmad. “Kode Etik Profesi Advokat di Era Digital.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 17, no. 2 (2021): 140–158.
Fauzi, Ahmad. “Tanggung Jawab Profesi Advokat dalam Era Kecerdasan Buatan.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 16, no. 1 (2020): 95-110.
Herlina, Novi. “Integrasi Etika dalam Teknologi Hukum.” Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan HAM 12, no. 1 (2023): 85–98.
Lemley, Mark A., and Bryan Casey. “Remedies for Robots.” The University of Chicago Law Review 86, no. 6 (2019): 1311–1391.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2.
McEvoy, Fiona. “Legal Ethics in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” AI Ethics Journal 1, no. 1 (2021): 48–60.
Novika, Nadya. “Komparasi Regulasi Robot Lawyer: Indonesia dan Kanada.” Jurnal Hukum dan Teknologi 6, no. 1 (2023): 25–40.
Pagallo, Ugo. “The Legal Challenges of AI.” Philosophy & Technology 31, no. 3 (2018): 315–330.
Permatasari, Rini. “Etika Profesi dan Teknologi: Studi Kasus Robot Lawyer.” Jurnal Hukum Modern 12, no. 3 (2021): 110-120.
Permatasari, Rini. “Profesionalisme Advokat dan Teknologi.” Jurnal Etika Hukum 13, no. 1 (2021): 40–55.
Permatasari, Rini. “Regulasi dan Etika Profesi dalam Era AI.” Jurnal Hukum Modern 14, no. 1 (2022): 30–45.
Prasetyo, Budi. 2022. “Blockchain dan Teknologi Hukum: Peluang dan Tantangan di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan 52 (1): 123-140. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no1.123.
Rahayu, Siti. “Perlindungan Konsumen Layanan Robot Lawyer di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan 51, no. 1 (2021): 65–80.
Rahayu, Siti. “Robot Lawyer dan Transformasi Layanan Hukum di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan 49, no. 2 (2019): 230-245.
Rahayu, Siti. “Robot Lawyer dan Transformasi Relasi Hukum.” Jurnal Hukum dan Etika Profesi 10, no. 2 (2022): 100–115.
Remus, Dana, and Frank Levy. 2016. “Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2701092.
Setiawan, Dedi. “Etika Profesi dan Teknologi: Menuju Regulasi AI Hukum di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Progresif 17, no. 2 (2023): 185–200.
Smith, John. “AI and Legal Ethics.” Journal of Legal Ethics 24, no. 2 (2021): 110–125.
Smith, John. “AI and Legal Ethics: An International Perspective.” Journal of Legal Ethics 22, no. 1 (2020): 40-55.
Smith, John. “AI and Legal Ethics: Surveillance and Compliance.” Journal of Legal Technology 23, no. 3 (2022): 80–95.
Smith, John. “Integrating AI Ethics into Legal Practice.” Journal of Legal Ethics 24, no. 2 (2021): 110–120.
Surden, Harry. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview.” Georgia State University Law Review 35 (4): 1305-1339. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol35/iss4/3.
Susskind, Richard. “Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Challenges and Opportunities.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 27, no. 3 (2019): 210-225.
Susskind, Richard. “Online Courts and the Future of Justice.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 28, no. 1 (2020): 1–20.
Susskind, Richard. 2019. Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Susskind, Richard. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Susskind, Richard. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Wachter, Sandra, Brent Mittelstadt, dan Luciano Floridi. 2017. “Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation.” International Data Privacy Law 7 (2): 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vincentius Patria Setyawan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
License Terms: Balobe Law Journal is disseminated based on the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license terms. This license allows anyone to copy and redistribute this material in any form or format, compose, modify, and make derivatives of this material for any purpose. You cannot use this material for commercial purposes. You must specify an appropriate name, include a link to the license, and certify that any changes have been made. You can do this in a way that is appropriate but does not imply that the licensor supports you or your use.
How to Cite
