Artificial intelligence in the legal system: Regulation and ethics

Autorët

  • Marjeta Shaholli Faculty of Law, University of Tirana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v17i1.7270

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming an essential tool in the legal field, helping lawyers analyze cases, predict legal outcomes, and even automate contracts. While these advancements improve efficiency, they also bring ethical and legal challenges. One major concern is ensuring that AI-based decisions are fair and unbiased, especially in court rulings. If AI systems are not properly regulated, they may reinforce existing biases or make decisions that lack transparency. This paper explores how AI is changing the legal system and the risks associated with its use. It examines the need for clear regulations to prevent discrimination, ensure accountability, and maintain public trust in AI-driven legal processes. Key solutions include ethical guidelines, transparency requirements, and human oversight to ensure that AI remains a tool that supports, rather than replaces, human judgment. By reviewing real-world examples and legal policies, this paper aims to highlight how law and technology can work together. The goal is to find a balance between innovation and justice, ensuring that AI benefits society while respecting fundamental legal principles.

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Legal System, Regulation, Ethics, Transparency, Accountability

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. 1. AI Now Institute. (2020). AI and the Contracting Process: A Report on the Risks and Opportuni-ties. https://ainowinstitute.org/reports.html

  2. 2. AI Now Institute. (2020). Algorithmic accountability policy toolkit. New York University. https://

  3. ainowinstitute.org

  4. 3. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine Bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica. https:// www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

  5. 4. Binns, R. (2020). Human judgment in algorithmic loops: Contestability, transparency and ac-countability. ACM Computing Surveys, 53(6), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412661

  6. 5. Binns, R. (2020). Human judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated deci-sion-making. Regulation & Governance, 14(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12240

  7. 6. Brookings Institution. (2021). AI in the judiciary: Promises and pitfalls. https://www.brookings. edu

  8. 7. Brookings Institution. (2021). Governing AI in the public sector: Risk, responsibility, and regula-tion. https://www.brookings.edu

  9. 8. Calo, R., Kerr, I., & Paredes, A. (2021). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

  10. 9. Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature, 538(7625), 311–

  11. 313. https://doi.org/10.1038/538311a

  12. 10. Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci-ence Advances, 4(1), eaao5580. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580

  13. 11. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). COM/2021/206 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-

  14. %3A52021PC0206

  15. 12. Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., & Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698

  16. 13. OECD. (2019). Access to justice and the use of technology: OECD policy roundtables. https://

  17. www.oecd.org/gov/access-to-justice.htm

  18. 14. OECD. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in society. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eed-fee77-en

  19. 15. OECD. (2019). Digital transformation and access to justice. OECD Policy Roundtables. https:// www.oecd.org/governance

  20. 16. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-

  21. %3A32016R0679

  22. 17. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton Uni-versity Press.

  23. 18. Surden, H. (2014). Machine learning and law. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 87–115.

  24. 19. Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan,

  25. B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the sci-entific literature. Political Science Research and Methods, 36(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/ psrm.2018.23.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-01

How to Cite

Shaholli, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence in the legal system: Regulation and ethics. Optime, 17(1), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v17i1.7270

Numër

No. 1 (2025): Optime

Section

Social Sciences