The essay highlights the positions of Russian legal scholars, specialists in procedural law, according to whom modern technologies should change the very essence of legal proceedings. The process, in particular, will consist in the fact that sooner or later a human judge will be replaced by artificial intelligence, and digital legal proceedings will take place according to new principles. For their part, the author of the essay puts forward arguments justifying the value of the classical principles of legal proceedings, primarily listed in Art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, since only their action creates a regime in which justice is administered, the highest quality of protection of subjective rights, freedoms and legitimate interests is ensured. Special focus is put on the thesis research of Danil Olegovich Drozd on the topic “The Procedural Forms of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Elements in the Modern Commercial and Civil Litigation” (Moscow, 2024), the author of which proposed options for adapting the known principles of the judicial process to artificial intelligence. In response, arguments are given in favour of the fact that it will not be possible to adapt the key principles of justice to artificial intelligence at present or in the near future. At the same time, the principle of judicial independence is emphasized, as well as the principle of the administration of justice exclusively by the court. Consequently, it is obviously too early to talk about the possibility of replacing a human judge in administering justice with such intelligence. The author believes that modern technologies can certainly facilitate the administration of justice, including by facilitating access to it for various people. At the same time, the rule, according to which such technologies should fully ensure the operation of generally known principles of justice, should be applied as a key principle of using modern technologies in legal proceedings.

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.

The ubiquitous digital transformation of society has also affected civil proceedings. However, neither legislators nor scholars have yet given due consideration to the innovations stemming from this phenomenon. This paper characterizes electronic civil proceedings in Kazakhstan, identifies regulatory challenges, and proposes solutions to overcome them. The study employs descriptive, analytical, and formal-legal methods to examine e-justice issues. The article highlights objectives for digitalizing civil proceedings in Kazakhstan and key initiatives to achieve them. It discusses operational information-analytical systems, including their services and modules. Additionally, it notes judicial domains where big data and artificial intelligence (AI) are currently applied. An analysis of Kazakhstan’s experience reveals these challenges: insufficient transparency in judicial activities; inadequate legal regulation of IT implementation (including AI in judicial processes); and the absence of a robust legislative framework for establishing and operating a digital environment. The paper supports adopting a Digital Code of Kazakhstan and amending the Civil Procedure Code to ensure proper implementation of civil procedure principles. It further proposes formalizing the application specifics of electronic civil procedure norms through a regulatory resolution of Kazakhstan’s Supreme Court.

With the enactment of the Federal Law on Digital Financial Assets and Digital Currency in 2020, digital currency was regulated for the first time ever in Russia. This established the prerequisites for discussing the issue of foreclosure on digital currency in enforcement proceedings. However, no specific amendment for such a foreclosure has been made in the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings. In this regard, the article aims to propose a possible model of foreclosure on cryptocurrencies in Russian enforcement proceedings and describe the factors on which such a procedure would depend. From the standpoint of a genetic and systematic approach the article analyzes domestic doctrinal sources, current Russian legislation and bylaws, and the Global Code of Digital Enforcement as an act of “soft law” summarizing the experience of foreclosing on digital assets in various legal systems. The research allowed to arrive at the following main conclusions: 1) the answer to the question about the legal nature of cryptocurrencies is not crucial for creating an appropriate model of foreclosure on digital currencies. If, in the interests of enforcement, digital currencies can be perceived as undocumented securities or receivable debts, this should be done; 2) due to the variety of digital currencies and their characteristics, it is hardly possible to create a universal model of foreclosure on them. Therefore, there should exist different types of foreclosure depending on a number of factors. Depending on the type of digital currency, foreclosure on cryptocurrencies may be based on the general procedure for foreclosing on “other property assets” (i.e. nonpecuniary assets), or require its integration into the mechanism for the enforcement of non-property claims that do not allow the replacement of the subject matter of enforcement. In conclusion, the author suggests that, with few exceptions, the existing tools of enforcement proceedings seem sufficient to create a mechanism for foreclosing on digital currency. In this sense, the development of such a mechanism requires to amend legislation on a case-by-case basis, as well as to set the methodology for enforcement in relation to digital currency, rather than a complete rethinking of enforcement proceedings. However, the effectiveness of enforcement through digital assets is also a matter of creating controlled cryptocurrency markets, financial and tax control, and information sovereignty. Therefore, the development of appropriate legal mechanisms for foreclosing on digital currency within the enforcement proceedings is not in itself a guarantee of the effectiveness of these mechanisms in practice.

The introduction of modern tools in civil proceedings, providing remote presence and realization of all procedural rights and obligations, suggests that the traditional form of participation of the prosecutor in civil proceedings is undergoing transformation. One of the key technologies that provide the most advanced possibility of participation in the process of proceedings in civil cases is web-conferencing or online meeting. A notable feature of this technology is the ability to participate in a court hearing “in click accessibility” from the comfort of one’s own home. The highlighted characteristics of this technology suggest that there are limited grounds for the prosecutor to apply to the court in defense of citizens and then participate in the court session. Wide opportunities for increasing the publicity and accessibility of justice with the use of the technology under consideration may have a downside, which should be outlined and the problematic points necessary to elaborate the possibility of prosecutor’s participation in civil proceedings in the ongoing and actively developing digitalization. The study aims to identify the nature and direction of the impact of online court technology on the role of the prosecutor applying to the court in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens. A key feature of this study is the application of the inductive method, which makes it possible to abstract from other information technologies used in the field of civil procedure. On the contrary, emphasis is placed on a specific technology in order to identify new opportunities and risks offered by the challenges of the new digital reality. In addition, the study used the formal-legal method, which manifested itself in the analysis of the relevant normative regulation, the logical method for the presentation and formation of the results of the conducted analysis. The following conclusions were made based on the results of the analysis: 1) web-conference (online hearing) has a significant impact on the principles of publicity, accessibility and equality; 2) web-conference (online hearing) allows the most sensitive segments of the population to remotely participate in a court hearing, controlling the quality of legal assistance provided by the prosecutor; 3) the optional nature of the use of web-conference (online hearing) does not justify the hypothesis of reducing the categories of citizens in defense of whose interests the prosecutor can appeal to the court; 4) the use of web conferencing (online sessions) increases the publicity of the activities of the prosecutor’s office due to the control by the material plaintiff over the course of the proceedings and the quality of legal assistance.

Despite the significant number of works devoted to electronic evidence, both in Russian and foreign legal doctrine, there continues to be keen interest in this topic. In Russian civil procedural law, problems are identified as arising in judicial practice when using electronic evidence. Many scientists and practitioners draw attention to the need to supplement procedural codes with separate articles devoted to electronic evidence — in particular, the procedure for obtaining it by the court. The present study considers whether errors encountered in judicial practice can be traced to in sufficient regulation governing the use of electronic evidence. In essence, this concerns whether electronic evidence has essential differences with other means of proof that need to be reflected in the law by supplementing procedural codes with relevant provisions. Based on general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison, comparison) and private law methods (formal-legal), special attention in the work is paid to the study of Russian procedural legislation and existing scientific positions in the theory of judicial proof along with proposals for improving procedural legislation in this area. As well as analyzing the main approaches to the concept of electronic evidence existing in science, the work specifies the attributes of electronic evidence, considers the position of electronic evidence in the system of judicial evidence, and identifies a need to supplement procedural codes with separate rules on electronic evidence. The study affirms the correctness of the position according to which electronic evidence should not be considered as a separate means of proof. This conclusion is based on the study of the theory of judicial proof, in which the method of its examination (or obtaining evidence) by the court is determined as a feature of each individual piece of evidence. Since electronic evidence demonstrates no specificity in this respect and based on the study of existing proposals in the scientific literature for improving procedural legislation, it is concluded that procedural codes do not need to be supplemented with separate articles on electronic evidence. Thus, the procedure for handling electronic evidence is subject to the general provisions of the law on judicial evidence (rules for the request, disclosure, provision, examination, and evaluation of evidence), taking into account the existing clarifications for written evidence.

The study sets out to evaluate the existing electronic filing of lawsuit services in civil litigation in Russia as an additional opportunity to access justice and implement the right to be heard. The author identifies the reasons for continuing to use the court system by mail or in person. Because ordinary people and lawyers are cautious about new technology, a lawsuit filed online might not be taken seriously. Additionally, the guarantees provided by law aim to preserve the date of the initial court appeal in cases where proceedings cannot be initiated due to noncompliance with the required formalities for the statement of claim. Based on the functionally equivalent method developed by UNCITRAL, the right to access justice has been shown to be unjustifiably violated by the procedure of technical verification of claim submitted to the court, which empowers a court official to notify the plaintiff that the documents cannot be recognized as received. The study evaluates the statements in current legal literature regarding the use of artificial intelligence by existing court filing services, as well as plans to develop a cassation appeal service using predicative justice technologies in terms of their impact on access to justice and the right to be heard. It is proposed that ethical rules be developed on the use of artificial intelligence in communication between the plaintiff and the court at the stage of applying to the court. Such an approach should allow to evaluate the administration of justice as posing the greatest risks to human rights in general and procedural rights in particular. The right of a lawyer to access judicial practice and tools for its analysis should be considered as part of the right to be heard.

In resolving corporate disputes of many kinds, the rights and legitimate interests of a considerable number of individuals may be impacted. Consequently, the establishment of specific procedural guidelines that would ensure the timely inclusion of all interested parties in the process is of paramount importance. According to Article 225.4 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, the arbitrazh court has the authority to require a legal entity to notify its members of a corporate dispute. However, the law does not specify the procedure for the fulfillment of such an obligation by a corporation. In this note, the author considers approaches to employing digital technologies by a legal entity to inform its members and other individuals stipulated by the law regarding the emergence of a corporate dispute. An analysis of the current legislation reveals that the electronic form of notification is required exclusively for public joint-stock corporations. The author concludes that non-public business partnerships as well as non-public corporations must expressly provide for the use of electronic forms of notification to their participants and other persons specified in the law about a corporate dispute in the legal entity’s charter. This approach ensures the prompt dissemination of information about corporate disputes among the interested parties, thereby notification periods established by the arbitrazh court’s established notification periods. In cases where a legal entity’s charter lacks provisions for notifying about the emergence of a corporate dispute, the procedure of notifying about a meeting on rendering corporate decision or absentee voting should be applied.