Artificial Intelligence and LegalTech: Risks of Transforming the Legal Profession

This essay examines how the proliferation of LegalTech and artificial intelligence is transforming the legal profession, with a particular focus on the erosion of the traditional monopoly held by lawyers. Through a comparative legal analysis of German and US case law, it explores how LegalTech platforms are challenging established doctrines regarding the unauthorized practice of law across jurisdictions. The study identifies a fundamental tension between legal formalism and procedural simplification — one that has entered a new phase in the digital era. The findings show that even traditionally conservative legal systems are experiencing a rapid expansion of automated pre-trial legal consultation services, resulting in the systematic deprofessionalization of legal practice. Significantly, the driving force behind this transformation is the commercial IT sector, which approaches the legal market primarily as a profit-making enterprise. This approach undermines the core principles of the legal profession — namely independence and exclusivity — which have long supported its dual mission of delivering qualified legal assistance and upholding the rule of law. This essay proposes a theoretical framework for evaluating the risks posed by the standardization of legal services. These risks include a decline in service quality for complex or atypical cases, ambiguous liability for algorithmic errors, and the gradual erosion of normative legal foundations as dispute resolution increasingly shifts from legislative institutions to corporate IT platforms. Drawing on Luhmann’s systems theory, the analysis underscores the importance of preserving the procedural autonomy of law as an essential mechanism for resolving social conflicts. The study concludes that while LegalTech offers significant benefits, its integration must take place within a strong regulatory framework.

1. Blume, F. H., & Frier, B. W. (Eds.). (2016). The Codex of Justinian: A new annotated translation, with parallel Latin and Greek text. Cambridge University Press.

2. Engstrom, D. F. (Ed.) (2023). LegalTech and the future of civil justice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009255301

3. Guillemard, S., Kerneis, S., & Menetrey, S. (2018). La vie formulaire — entre procédure judiciaire et dérive administrative du droit d’hier à aujourd’hui [Formulaic life — between judicial procedure and administrative abuse of law from yesterday to today]. International Journal of Procedural Law, 8(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1163/30504856-00802013

4. Harper, R. F. (1904). The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon: About 2250 B.C. University of Chicago Press.

5. Hazard, G. C., & Dondi, A. (2004). Legal ethics: A comparative study. Stanford University Press.

6. Janssen, A., & Vennmanns, T. J. (2021). The effects of technology on legal practice: From punch card to artificial intelligence? In L. A. DiMatteo, A. Janssen, P. Ortolani, F. de Elizalde, M. Cannarsa, & M. Durovic (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of lawyering in the digital age (pp. 38–56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108936040.005

7. Katz, D. M. (2013). Quantitative legal prediction – or – how I learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data-driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law Journal, 62(4), 909–966.

8. Luban, D. (2003). Taking out the adversary: The assault on progressive public interest lawyers. California Law Review, 1(91), 209–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481386

9. Niklas, L. (1993). Das Recht der Gesellschaft [Law as a social system]. Suhrkamp Verlag.

10. Remus, D. A. (2017). Reconstructing professionalism. Georgia Law Review, 51(3), 807–877.

11. Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Ethics in practice: Lawyers’ roles, responsibility and regulation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195129618.001.0001

12. Spaulding, N. W. (2017). Due process without judicial process?: Antiadversarialism in American legal culture. Fordham Law Review, 5(85), 2249–2273.

13. Spaulding, N. W. (2023). Online dispute resolution and the end of adversarial justice. In D. F. Engstrom (Ed.), LegalTech and the future of civil justice (pp. 251–285). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009255301.015

14. Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198713395.001.0001

15. Vismann, C. (2000). Akten: Medientechnik und Recht [Files: Media technology and law]. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

16. Xu, X. (2023). Lawyers in Chinese culture. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, 64(1), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.3917/apd.641.0269