Chatbots, Verdict Prediction, Compensation Claims... Foreign Courts Expanding AI Usage

Court Administration Office Research Report
"Thorough Review Needed for Domestic Adoption"

The judiciary has released a report from the Court Administration Office proposing the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) to △ improve judicial accessibility through chatbot systems, guide robots, and complaint drafting assistance systems, enabling dispute resolution via negotiation or mediation online, and △ enhance trial support systems by implementing AI assistance systems, establishing specialized courts, and converting documents into voice formats.

Pixabay

The Administration Office conducted a policy research project titled "Cases of AI and Other Technology Utilization in Courts Worldwide and Implications for South Korea." The Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation of Seoul National University carried out the research over 11 months from December 2023 to November of last year.

Although the Administration Office has not yet decided which specific proposals from the report it will pursue, it is expected to continue reviewing the research results as key reference materials while exploring various AI utilization strategies.

Cases of AI Technology Utilization in Courts Worldwide

The report examined AI and related technology use cases and patent trends in courts of countries including the United States, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, China, and Singapore, analyzing the application of various cutting-edge technologies such as big data in judicial work.

In the United States, efforts to introduce AI services are mainly focused on state courts rather than at the federal level, implementing △ public-facing chatbot services △ online dispute resolution procedures △ and the COMPAS recidivism prediction program.

Germany is considered a latecomer in digitalization due to insufficient digital infrastructure and privacy concerns, but recent efforts by the federal government and judiciary to promote digitalization are underway. Key AI technology applications include △ digital transformation in civil litigation △ planning of generative judicial language model projects △ AI use in large-scale litigation △ and projects for anonymizing judgments.

Austria is regarded as the most digitally advanced country in the judicial sector in Europe, utilizing △ AI for recording, structuring, and reading digital files △ AI for anonymizing judgments △ and AI for context-based legal research.

In the Singapore courts, △ online case submission and management systems for small claims tribunals and civil online tools are being implemented, alongside △ an online traffic accident compensation claim simulator and △ virtual assistant services. The online traffic accident compensation claim simulator calculates compensation amounts within minutes for claimants using technology that considers current laws and precedents.

According to global trends in judicial AI patents and recent research, △ work automation △ judgment prediction △ and support service technologies are primarily being developed. Notably, automated litigation outcome prediction and judgment/judgment assistance fields have seen various domestic and international companies securing patent technologies.

Technologies Applicable to South Korea

The report proposed technologies applicable to the Korean judiciary based on the current status of digital transformation and technology utilization in Korean courts, categorized into judicial accessibility and trial support aspects.

For judicial accessibility, it suggested chatbot systems, guide robots, complaint drafting assistance systems, and online negotiation or mediation for dispute resolution. However, it noted that the "online traffic accident compensation claim simulator" might be inappropriate if operated by the courts rather than administrative agencies, recommending careful consideration before deciding on its adoption.

Additionally, the report expressed that the "sentencing evaluation system" raises issues regarding legitimacy and fairness, requiring more thorough review before deciding on its implementation.

Park Su-yeon, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.