Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning: Reconsidering Human Judgment and Accountability in the Digital Age

Autor

  • John W. Baker Autor
    ##author.competingInterests##

    No Competing Interests

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/

Słowa kluczowe:

Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Law and Technology, Algorithmic Bias, Procedural Fairness

Abstrakt

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI and large language models, is transforming legal research, analysis, drafting, and decision-making. AI systems increasingly perform tasks traditionally associated with lawyers and other legal professionals, raising fundamental questions concerning human judgment and accountability within legal institutions. This article examines whether AI-assisted legal reasoning can be reconciled with the rule of law, procedural fairness, and human responsibility. The article argues that legal reasoning extends beyond the retrieval or probabilistic generation of legal information. It involves interpreting authoritative sources, evaluating facts, resolving competing principles, exercising judgment, and providing reasons capable of scrutiny and challenge. AI therefore presents significant risks, including hallucinated authorities, algorithmic bias, opacity, automation bias, and excessive reliance on machine-generated outputs. Through a comparative examination of emerging regulatory and professional approaches in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, and India, the article assesses existing mechanisms for accountability in AI-assisted legal work. It proposes a framework centred on meaningful human oversight, independent verification, transparency, traceability, reason-giving, and contestability. The article concludes that AI should function as an assistive technological instrument that augments legal reasoning without displacing human judgment and responsibility necessary for legitimate and accountable legal decision-making.

Bibliografia

Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 2025. Annual Report 2025: Court Operations. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts. [https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025].

American Bar Association. 2024. Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. Chicago: American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 29 July 2024.

American Bar Association. 2025. “Generative Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Ethics: A Brief Overview.” The Judges’ Journal. Chicago: American Bar Association. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/jd-record/2025/generative-artificial-intelligence-judicial-ethics/].

American Bar Association. 2025. “Guidelines for U.S. Judicial Officers Regarding the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The Judges’ Journal. Chicago: American Bar Association. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/judges-journal/2025-spring/guidelines-judicial-officers-responsible-use-artificial-intelligence/].

Ashley, Kevin D. 2017. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. 2025. Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025). London: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 31 October 2025.

[https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence-ai-judicial-guidance-october-2025/].

European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/].

Magesh, Varun, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, and Daniel E. Ho. 2025. “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 22 (2): 216–242. [https://law.stanford.edu/publications/hallucination-free-assessing-the-reliability-of-leading-ai-legal-research-tools/].

Mata v. Avianca, Inc. 2023. 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y.).

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. 2026. 2026 INSC 668. Supreme Court of India, 2 July 2026.

Supreme Court of India. 2026. Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026. New Delhi: Artificial Intelligence Committee, Supreme Court of India, 3 June 2026. [https://www.sci.gov.in/].

Susskind, Richard. 2008. The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Surden, Harry. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview.” Georgia State University Law Review 35 (4): 1305–1338. [https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol35/iss4/8].

UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, adopted 23 November 2021. [https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence].

Opublikowane

2026-02-21

Jak cytować

Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning: Reconsidering Human Judgment and Accountability in the Digital Age. (2026). Oxford Law Review, 1(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.5281/