Legal technology in contemporary USA and China

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105459Get rights and content

Abstract

The US and China are two typical models that present legal tech trends that are common world over. In China, robust regional models of intelligent judicial systems have emerged alongside some common applications that include the same-type case referencing, automated sentencing decision, uniform standards of evidence, and judges’ data profiling systems. In the US, legal tech refers to artificial intelligence in domains such as innovative legal research, predictive litigation analysis, e-discovery, and contract review.

The common elements in the development of legal tech in both countries are useful for other countries to understand. However, the legal tech in both countries has distinct characteristics, as seen in their different driving forces, target groups and purposes. The characteristics of legal tech are heavily related to each country's political background, legal system, and judicial structure. The different paths taken toward legal tech also remind us to reflect on the mistakes made and to explore some experiences pertaining to developing legal tech. For the strategic deployment, it is reasonable to apply cutting-edge technologies to the legal field until they are truly matured, and combine the top-level design with local pilot projects. For the target groups, litigants and vulnerable groups should not be neglected in legal tech service provision. For the purposes, machines should play an auxiliary role rather than replace judges altogether.

Introduction

In recent years, the Chinese government has spared no effort in developing big data and new generations of AI,2 both of which have been listed as national priorities. In July 2017, the government unveiled its Notice of the State Council on Issuing the Development Plan on the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence, which attracted attention worldwide. Since then, AI technologies have been applied widely in the Chinese legal system. These include the same-type cases referencing, sentencing decision, uniform standard of evidence, legal management, and data profiling systems, among others. AI is also booming in the US. President Trump signed an executive order promoting AI use in 2019. AI technologies are applied in the legal field in the US and are especially welcomed by lawyers. Some of the areas of application include intelligent legal research, predictive litigation analysis, automatic contract review, and e-discovery. Collectively, these tools may be called legal tech, wherein the term refers to the technology and software used in the legal profession.3

This article is the first one to research on the legal tech in a comparative view which has not been done before. China and the US were chosen as examples because they are among the world's leading countries in AI development and well represent the extent of legal tech development world over. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to explore some useful and universal experiences for the legal tech development. By describing common legal tech trends in the two countries, this article explores the elements that are necessary for the legal tech development of legal tech, in order to offer appropriate information for other countries. The article also explores the characteristics of legal tech in China and the US and clarifies the factors that have resulted in different legal tech paths in a comparative view. Because by reflecting on the different characteristics of legal tech in the two countries, it's obvious to point out the deviations in legal tech development and explore some best practices that can inform the whole world.

The rest of this article is structured as follows. Parts two and three introduce the strategies and specific applications of legal tech in China and the US, respectively. Part four introduces the common trends in legal tech development, and explains that huge legal data, AI technology development, and cooperation across different areas are necessary for legal tech development. Part five highlights the characteristics of legal tech in both countries, including different driving forces, target groups, and purposes. Legal tech is guided by the government in China and driven by the market in the US. It mainly serves the judiciary in China and is embraced by lawyers in the US. In China, the authorities hope to realize justice based on legal tech. In the US, the emphasis is more on efficiency rather than on replacing the existing justice mechanisms. The last part reflects on and explores these characteristics of legal tech. Although the characteristics of the development of legal tech are related to each country's political, judicial, and legal systems, the differences also remind us that there may some deviations in legal tech development, and some general experiences can be drawn from the comparison of the characteristics. Firstly, for the uniqueness of legal field, it is better to develop legal tech until AI technologies are mature enough to take over. Secondly, legal tech tools should service both the judiciary and lawyers, as well as the litigants and the general public. Last but not least, legal tech is not intelligent enough to acquire the qualities it needs to dispense “justice.” Thus, it should serve a referential function rather than erode the discretionary power of judges.

Section snippets

Legal tech in China

Legal tech in China has been booming since 2016.4 China has adopted and implemented several national strategies addressing the development of big data and AI. Under the leadership and guidance of the Central Government, some pilot programs have proven successful, such as the “Case Management System for Big Data” in

Legal tech in the US

In the US, big data, AI, and other cutting-edge technologies have been used extensively by law enforcement for a couple of years now. For example, “PredPol” is a popular tool for predictive policing. It can predict where and when specific crimes are most likely to occur based on GIS technology and data analysis.44 Social Network Analysis (SNA)45

Common trend and elements of legal tech

Though China and the US have totally different legal systems and traditions and are separated by millions of miles in terms of geographic distance, legal tech reform takes place in both countries simultaneously. Such legal tech reform even spreads to the whole world, including Europe, Asia, and Africa. In Europe, legal tech history dates back to the 1950s. Legal tech has now evolved to include e-discovery, legal search, automated document assembly and analytics, ODR, standardized claim

Characteristics of legal tech in China and the US

In addition to the common trends and elements of legal tech in China and the US, they have distinct characteristics, as seen in their different driving forces, target groups and purposes.

The comparison of the characteristics not only describes legal tech in each country, but also offers perspectives to remind us that there are different paths towards the legal tech development and that some deviations are possible. Some worthy experiences and lessons are also obvious to drawn from based on

Reflections and explorations of the characteristics of legal tech

From the analysis, it is not very hard to understand that the characteristics of legal tech in different countries are related to the politics, judiciary, and legal systems of each country. These are also the factors that influence the paths and directions for individual countries’ legal tech development. Furthermore, these differences also clearly remind us that there may be some deviations or mistakes in legal tech development. By analyzing different characteristics, some useful lessons and

Conclusion

Legal tech is an inevitable trend world over. China and the US are two typical examples that offer us a general view informing the development and exploration of legal tech. Natural language processing, automatic speech recognition, machine learning, and other AI technologies have been applied widely for legal tech applications. In China, the same-type cases referencing system, the sentencing decision system, the uniform standards of evidence system, the legal management system and others are

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This article is the product of having spent the 2018–2019 academic year as a visiting scholar at Berkeley Law. It is based on information gained from lectures delivered by lawyers and tech professionals from Silicon Valley, as well as from interviews with legal professors. I would like to thank Professor Rachel Stern for her informed opinions, as well as Professor Andrea Roth for her insights and suggestions. I would also like to thank Professor Pinxin Liu, Jinting Deng, and all the judges,

References (0)

Cited by (0)

1

Author's introduction: Ran Wang is an Associate Professor of Law School, Tianjin University (TJU, China), and the researcher of Institution of Intelligent Rule of Law of TJU. She was a visiting scholar of Berkeley Law from August 2018 to August 2019. Her research focuses on big data, artificial intelligence and justice. Her monograph Criminal Big Data Investigation, which has been published in mainland China and Taiwan, won the first prize of the First China Cyber Law Outstanding Achievement Award (2018). In the Seventh Annual Conference on Governance of Emerging Technologies & Science in the United States, her work Legal Tech in China and the US won the second prize of poster presentation. She has lead and participated in over a dozen academic projects with the topics on Big Data Evidence, Open Data of Public Institution in Era of Big Data, etc. She is also committed to studying the legal risks arising from the cutting-edge technological reform, such as the information privacy, due process, big data surveillance and so on.

View full text