# Legal technology

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Legal_technology
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Legal_technology.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technology
> Source revision: 1345667135
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Technology and software to provide legal services

Part of a series on Law Foundations and philosophy Jurisprudence History Legal theory Judicial interpretation Positive law Law and economics Sociology of law Methodological background Normative Prescriptive Jurimetrics Legal debate Legal and judicial opinions v t e

**Legal technology**, also known as **legal tech**, refers to the use of technology and software to provide [legal services](/source/Lawyer#Responsibilities) and support the legal industry.[1][2] Legal technology encompasses the use of traditional software architecture and web technologies, such as searchable databases of case law and other legal authority,[3] as well as [machine learning](/source/Machine_learning) technologies, such as those used to automatically search documents for purposes of [due diligence](/source/Due_diligence) or [discovery](/source/Discovery_(law)).[4]: 1329 Work on making contracts more easy to use involve aspects of [user experience design](/source/User_experience_design),[5]: 69 and artificial intelligence.[6]

Alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) increasingly use legal technology to deliver transactional legal work at scale, helping in-house legal teams improve service delivery, streamline operations, and redirect capacity to higher-value tasks.[7]

## Definitions

Legal technology traditionally referred to the application of technology and software to help individual lawyers, law firms, medium and large scale businesses with [practice management](/source/Legal_matter_management), [document automation](/source/Document_automation), [document storage](/source/Document_management_system), [billing](/source/Invoicing), accounting and [electronic discovery](/source/Electronic_discovery).[8][9]: 83

## History

From the 1970s through to the 1990s there were several academic attempts to formalize legal reasoning, a [knowledge representation](/source/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning) task.[4]: 1327 The International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL) has been held since 1987[4]: 1327 The first commercially available legal AI system was an [expert system](/source/Expert_system) released in 1988 by the [University of Oxford](/source/University_of_Oxford) to tell users if a new piece of legislation, the latent damage act applied to them.[10]: 132 Since 2000, there have been more attempts to make legal tasks easier using [machine learning](/source/Machine_learning) approaches rather than knowledge representation.[4]: 1328 In the mid 2000s so-called predictive coding became possible for use in the [discovery](/source/Discovery_(law)) process of litigation. These predictive coding tools helped lawyers predict which documents were relevant or irrelevant for the litigation, after having been trained on a subset of documents.[4]: 1329

In 1975 in the US, the [Federal Judicial Center](/source/Federal_Judicial_Center) started the COURTRAN project for the electronic recording of court records. This was initially used for criminal cases, but later was adapted for managing civil cases. COURTRAN was replaced by the Integrated Case Management System in the mid 1980s.[11] The [Legal Information Institute](/source/Legal_Information_Institute) was set up in 1992, at [Cornell University](/source/Cornell_University) with the aim of making law more accessible,[12] and began providing access to US supreme court decisions.[13] Development of the [PACER](/source/PACER_(law)) to nationwide access to court records, began in 1990 and by the mid 1990s, 180 federal courts were offering fee based access to court records via [Dial-up Internet access](/source/Dial-up_Internet_access).[14]: 860 The [E-Government Act of 2002](/source/E-Government_Act_of_2002) limited the fees to only the extent necessary.[14]: 863 The Open Courts Act of 2020 set out a plan to make PACER free to use by 2025.[15]

Some legal technology seek to provide consumers with access to online software that reduces or eliminates the need to consult a lawyer, or by connecting people with lawyers more efficiently.[16] For example, companies have emerged to assist with air passenger compensation claims under the EU's [Flight Compensation Regulation](/source/Flight_Compensation_Regulation) without the need for a lawyer.[17]

## Applications

### Case law databases

Use of tools to aid with [legal research](/source/Legal_research) is very common within the legal field. Commercial companies such as [Practical Law Company](/source/Practical_Law_Company), [LexisNexis](/source/LexisNexis), and [Reuters](/source/Reuters) offer services where a lawyer can pay to search [case law](/source/Case_law).[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*] In the early 1990s the Cornell *Legal Information Institute* (ILL) started to provide free of charge full text access to [US Supreme Court](/source/US_Supreme_Court) judgements. A database of [Canadian Supreme Court](/source/Canadian_Supreme_Court) decisions was hosted under the name *LexUM*. In Australia the AustLII ([Australasian Legal Information Institute](/source/Australasian_Legal_Information_Institute)) was founded in 1995. It was the first free case law database to achieve national coverage and now comprises over 200 databases with case law from virtually all courts and tribunals. The [British and Irish Legal Information Institute](/source/British_and_Irish_Legal_Information_Institute) (BAILII) was established in 1999. These initiatives demonstrated the strong demand for free public access to case law to aid legal research and the [Free Access to Law Movement](/source/Free_Access_to_Law_Movement) was formally established in 2002.[18] In the US the Caselaw Access Project, run by [Harvard Law School](/source/Harvard_Law_School), had by 2018 scanned in excess of 40 million legal documents relating to reported US state and federal cases. US case law is made accessible free of charge and via an [application programming interface](/source/Application_programming_interface) (API).[19] Several computational legal corpora have also been published in other jurisdictions including the European Court of Human Rights,[20] Germany,[21] Korea,[22] Australia,[23] Canada,[24] and the UK,[25] as well as multi-national datasets such as MultiLegalPile[26] and LexFiles.[27]

### Document automation

Legal technology companies such as [LegalZoom](/source/LegalZoom) and [Rocket Lawyer](/source/Rocket_Lawyer) provide consumers and small businesses with [document automation](/source/Document_automation) services. Document drafting is rules-based legal work and drafts of legal documents, such as contracts and the documents required for company formation, can be reliably generated through an [interactive](/source/Interactive) website.[28] [LegalZoom](/source/LegalZoom) and [Rocket Lawyer](/source/Rocket_Lawyer) can assemble the full range of legal documents required in the United States to be filed in court for official record or court proceedings.[29] Document automation service assemble legal documents out of templates with fill-in-blanks. The legal document is interactively assembled via a question and answer program, where the user is responding to queries. Law firms have access to a range of document automation services on a subscription basis. Lawyers can automate their own templates or pay to access prefabricated templates.[30] Since the 1970s more than 65 legal document automation services have been commercially available to lawyers. Well established document automation services for lawyers include [ContractExpress](/source/ContractExpress) and [HotDocs](/source/HotDocs).[31]

Template based document automation works best for contracts that use [boilerplate clause](/source/Boilerplate_clause), model contracts or standard clauses. The integration of [predictive analytics](/source/Predictive_analytics) allows for predictive contracting, where the drafter is provided with statistical information about the likelihood that a nonstandard clause will be subject to litigation or adverse judicial interpretation. Contract analytics services provided by LexPredict and [Bloomberg L.P.](/source/Bloomberg_L.P.) use [natural language processing](/source/Natural_language_processing) (NLP) tools to find unique clauses in contracts[32] by identifying statistical patterns within language [syntax](/source/Syntax).[33]

There have been attempts to improve the design of contracts, which have traditionally been seen as documents by lawyers for lawyers. Suggested improvements to the design of contracts have considered how contracts could convey more information visually, more directly address business needs, and improve relationships between the parties of a contract.[5]: 69 Scholars have suggested the use of so-called self-executing contracts, where the terms of the contract are automatically updated by a computer using predefined rules. A further step would be the generation of a [machine-readable](/source/Machine-readable_data) representation of the contract that could be used in other automated processes such as [contract lifecycle management](/source/Contract_lifecycle_management).[5]: 74 Recent commentary in the legal AI field has emphasized that the success of agentic systems in contract review depends less on autonomy and more on producing verifiable, trustworthy outputs that legal teams can rely on.[34] Recent commentary has also examined the emergence of generative AI tools designed for non-attorney users, which aim to assist with the preparation of standardized legal documents and preliminary legal materials without direct attorney involvement.[35][*[self-published source?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)*]

## Cyberjustice

Main article: [Cyberjustice](/source/Cyberjustice)

The [judiciary](/source/Judiciary) have expressed interest in the potential for electronics [filing](/source/Filing_(law)) to reduce costs and increase efficiency[36]: 18 and online [alternative dispute resolution](/source/Alternative_dispute_resolution) as a means to reduce costs to claimants increasing [access to justice](/source/Access_to_justice).[37][36]: 19 Technological approaches are being used to provide guidance for [sentencing](/source/Sentence_(law)) and [pretrial detention](/source/Pretrial_detention) in some courts, including machine-learning based solutions which have been criticized for potential racial bias issues.[38]: 10[39] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been introduced to the market by the big three legal research providers [LexisNexis](/source/LexisNexis), [Westlaw](/source/Westlaw), and [Bloomberg Law](/source/Bloomberg_Law). The [Lex Machina](/source/Lex_Machina) estimates a judges' likelihood of granting or denying a motion.[40] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been criticized for potentially harming access to justice, as would-be litigants with claims that are judged too novel or less viable may be denied legal representation.[41]

## Approaches

[Artificial intelligence](/source/Artificial_intelligence), [machine learning](/source/Machine_learning) and [natural language processing](/source/Natural_language_processing) are being applied to machine learning tasks particularly those related to [search](/source/Search_engine), such as [due diligence](/source/Due_diligence) and [discovery](/source/Discovery_(law)) in litigation cases.[9]: 133

[Knowledge graphs](/source/Knowledge_graph) are being applied to assist in the creation, management, and analysis of [smart contracts](/source/Smart_contract).

[Rule-based](/source/Rule-based_system) [expert system](/source/Expert_system) have been used for the purposes [knowledge representation](/source/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning) and querying legal knowledge, one such example being [TurboTax](/source/TurboTax).[4]: 1317 These approaches are studied in [Legal informatics](/source/Legal_informatics).

## Industry context

Although the legal industry was traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, the present legal environment requires greater adaptation to and incorporation of technology,[6] with the [American Bar Association](/source/American_Bar_Association) voting in August 2012 to amend the [Model Rules of Professional Conduct](/source/American_Bar_Association_Model_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct) to require lawyers to keep abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology",[42][43] and in late 2019, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada adopted a similar amendment to the Model Code of Professional Conduct.[44] The saturation of the market is leading many lawyers to look for cutting-edge ways to compete.[16] The exponential growth in the volume of documents (mostly email) that must be reviewed for litigation cases has greatly accelerated the adoption of technology used in eDiscovery, with elements of machine language and artificial intelligence being incorporated and cloud-based services being adopted by law firms.[45]

[Stanford Law School](/source/Stanford_Law_School) has started [CodeX](/source/CodeX), the Center for Legal Informatics, an interdisciplinary research center, which also incubates companies started by law students and computer scientists. Some companies that have come out of the program include [Lex Machina](/source/Lex_Machina) and Legal.io.[46]

Funding for legal technology companies surged 44% year-over-year to about $3.56 billion in the first half of 2025.[47]

## Societal issues

Many critics have voiced concerns about the risk of bias in the decisions made by models trained using machine learning approaches such as sentencing decisions, arguing that a model could learn the bias in existing decisions.[4]: 1335 Others have voiced concerns about the [explainable](/source/Explainable_artificial_intelligence) of the decisions made by machine learning models arguing that such models can be a [black box](/source/Black_box). There are concerns about the possibility that models could be viewed as objective and infalliable when they are not.[4]: 1336

There is interest in the use of legal technology to increase [access to justice](/source/Access_to_justice). Programs have attempted to use legal technology to improve access to justice by improving processes, automating access to legal information and advice, and improving user interaction.[48]

## Key areas

Traditional areas of Legal Tech include:

- [Contract Management](/source/Contract_Management)

- Matter and Case Management

- Accounting

- [Billing](/source/Invoicing)

- [Document automation](/source/Document_automation)

- [Document storage](/source/Document_management_system)

- [Electronic discovery](/source/Electronic_discovery)

- [Enterprise legal management](/source/Enterprise_legal_management)

- [Legal research](/source/Legal_research)

- Practice management

- [Case management](/source/Legal_case_management)

- E-Signature platform

- Service of Process

More recent areas of growth in Legal Tech focus on:

- Providing tools or a marketplace to connect clients with lawyers

- [Client relationship management](/source/Client_relationship_management) ([CRM](/source/Customer_relationship_management)) tools

- Providing tools for consumers and businesses to complete legal matters by themselves, obviating the need for a lawyer

- Data and contract analytics

- [Law practice optimization](/source/Law_practice_optimization)

- Use of legally binding [digital signature](/source/Digital_signature), which helps verify the digital identity of each signer, maintains the chain of custody for the documents and can provide audit trails

- Automation of legal writing or other substantive aspects of legal practice

- Machine readable contracts[49]

- Platforms for succession planning i.e. Will writing, via online applications

- Providing tools to assist with immigration document preparation in lieu of hiring a lawyer.[50][51]

## References

1. **[^](#cite_ref-1)** Whalen, Ryan (15 April 2022). ["Defining legal technology and its implications"](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fijlit%2Feaac005). *International Journal of Law and Information Technology*. **30** (1): 47–67. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1093/ijlit/eaac005](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fijlit%2Feaac005).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-2)** Mania, Karolina (June 2023). ["Legal Technology: Assessment of the Legal Tech Industry's Potential"](https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13132-022-00924-z). *Journal of the Knowledge Economy*. **14** (2): 595–619. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1007/s13132-022-00924-z](https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13132-022-00924-z).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** ["AustLII – User Tools: Sino Free Text Search Engine"](https://www.austlii.edu.au/techlib/software/sino/). *www.austlii.edu.au*. Retrieved 26 September 2021.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:1_4-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:1_4-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-:1_4-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-:1_4-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-:1_4-4) [***f***](#cite_ref-:1_4-5) [***g***](#cite_ref-:1_4-6) [***h***](#cite_ref-:1_4-7) Surden, Harry (1 June 2019). ["Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview"](https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol35/iss4/8/). *Georgia State University Law Review*. **35** (4). [SSRN](/source/SSRN_(identifier)) [3411869](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3411869).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:2_5-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:2_5-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-:2_5-2) Marcelo Corrales; Mark Fenwick; Helena Haapio, eds. (2019). *Legal tech, smart contracts and Blockchain*. Singapore. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-981-13-6086-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-981-13-6086-2). [OCLC](/source/OCLC_(identifier)) [1084757003](https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/1084757003).{{[cite book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book)}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_location_missing_publisher))

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-abatech_6-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-abatech_6-1) Fuentes, Lourdes M. ["Lessons from Legal Research's Past for the GenAI-Powered Legal Technology of Tomorrow"](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-technology-today/2024/lessons-from-legal-researchs-past-for-the-genai-powered-legal-technology-of-tomorrow/). *ABA*. American Bar Association. Retrieved 19 February 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-7)** ["How CrowdStrike's Use of Factor Shifted Legal Team Mindset"](https://www.legaldive.com/news/crowdstrike-cybersecurity-factor-alsp-alternative-legal-services-provider-acc-value-champion/649063/). *Legal Dive*. Retrieved 9 July 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-8)** Kluttz, Daniel N.; [Mulligan, Deirdre K](/source/Deirdre_Mulligan) (2019). "Automated decision support technologies and the legal profession". *Berkeley Technology Law Journal*. **343** (3): 853-890.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:0_9-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:0_9-1) Susanne Chishti, ed. (2020). *The legaltech book: the legal technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and FinTech visionaries*. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-119-70806-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-119-70806-3). [OCLC](/source/OCLC_(identifier)) [1154093755](https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/1154093755).{{[cite book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book)}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_location_missing_publisher))

1. **[^](#cite_ref-10)** Susskind, Daniel; Susskind, Richard (June 2018). "The Future of the Professions". *Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society*. **162** (2): 125–138. [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [45211625](https://www.jstor.org/stable/45211625). [ProQuest](/source/ProQuest) [2157781264](https://www.proquest.com/docview/2157781264).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-11)** Owen, Forrester J (1995). ["History of the Federal Judiciary's Automation Program, The L. Ralph Mecham & Federal Courts Administration: A Decade of Innovation and Progress"](https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=aulr). *[American University Law Review](/source/American_University_Law_Review)*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-LIIOverview_12-0)** ["LII:Overview"](https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii.html). Retrieved 4 March 2010.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-Amant_13-0)** St. Amant, Kirk (2007). [*Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives*](https://books.google.com/books?id=75KT6GdcWbYC&pg=PA375). IGI Global. p. 375. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-59140-999-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-59140-999-1).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:4_14-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:4_14-1) Martin, Peter W. (2008). ["Online Access to Court Records – From Documents to Data, Particulars to Patterns"](https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vllalr53&id=867&div=&collection=). *Villanova Law Review*. **53**: 855.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-15)** Lee, Timothy B. (10 December 2020). ["US House passes bill to tear down judiciary's paywall"](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/us-house-passes-bill-to-tear-down-judiciarys-paywall/). *Ars Technica*. Retrieved 26 September 2021.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-TechCrunch1_16-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-TechCrunch1_16-1) Rubin, Basha (6 December 2014). ["Legal Tech Startups Have A Short History And A Bright Future"](https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/06/legal-tech-startups-have-a-short-history-and-a-bright-future/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-17)** Christine Riefa; Severine Saintier (2020). *Vulnerable Consumers and the Law: Consumer Protection and Access to Justice*. Taylor & Francis. p. 229. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-000-20970-9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-000-20970-9).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-18)** Pierre F. Tiako, ed. (2009). *Software Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications*. IGI Global. p. 2805. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-60566-061-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-60566-061-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-19)** Dwight Steward; Roberto Cavazos (2019). *Big Data Analytics in U.S. Courts*. Springer International Publishing. p. 77. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-3-030-31780-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-3-030-31780-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-20)** Poudyal, Prakash; Savelka, Jaromir; Ieven, Aagje; Moens, Marie Francine; Goncalves, Teresa; Quaresma, Paulo (December 2020). ["ECHR: Legal Corpus for Argument Mining"](https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.8). *Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Argument Mining*. Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 67–75.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-21)** Leitner, Elena; Rehm, Georg; Moreno-Schneider, Julian (May 2020). ["A Dataset of German Legal Documents for Named Entity Recognition"](https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.551). *Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference*. Marseille, France: European Language Resources Association. pp. 4478–4485.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-22)** Hwang, Wonseok; Lee, Dongjun; Cho, Kyoungyeon; Lee, Hanuhl; Seo, Minjoon (December 2022). ["A Multi-Task Benchmark for Korean Legal Language Understanding and Judgement Prediction"](https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/d15abd14d5894eebd185b756541d420e-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.html). *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. **35**: 32537–32551.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-23)** Butler, Umar (2024). ["Open Australian Legal Corpus"](https://huggingface.co/datasets/umarbutler/open-australian-legal-corpus). Hugging Face. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.57967/hf/1771](https://doi.org/10.57967%2Fhf%2F1771).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-24)** Rehaag, Sean; Wallace, Simon (2025). ["A2AJ Canadian Legal Data"](https://github.com/a2aj-ca/canadian-legal-data). *GitHub*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-25)** Östling, Andreas; Sargeant, Holli; Xie, Huiyuan; Bull, Ludwig; Terenin, Alexander; Jonsson, Leif; Magnusson, Måns; Steffek, Felix (2023). ["The Cambridge Law Corpus: A Dataset for Legal AI Research"](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3666122.3667915). *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. **36**: 41355–41385. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.17863/cam.107551](https://doi.org/10.17863%2Fcam.107551).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-26)** Niklaus, Joel; Matoshi, Veton; Stürmer, Matthias; Chalkidis, Ilias; Ho, Daniel E. (2024). "MultiLegalPile: A 689GB Multilingual Legal Corpus". [arXiv](/source/ArXiv_(identifier)):[2306.02069](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02069) [[cs.CL](https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.CL)].

1. **[^](#cite_ref-27)** Chalkidis, Ilias; Garneau, Nicolas; Goanta, Catalina; Katz, Daniel Martin; Søgaard, Anders (2023). "LeXFiles and LegalLAMA: Facilitating English Multinational Legal Language Model Development". [arXiv](/source/ArXiv_(identifier)):[2305.07507](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07507) [[cs.CL](https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.CL)].

1. **[^](#cite_ref-28)** David Freeman Engstrom (2023). *Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice*. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-009-25535-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-009-25535-6).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-29)** David Freeman Engstrom (2023). *Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice*. Cambridge University Press. p. 38. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-009-25535-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-009-25535-6).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-30)** Michael Legg; Felicity Bell (2020). *Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession*. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 179. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-5099-3183-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-5099-3183-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-31)** Daniel Martin Katz; Michael J. Bommarito; Ron Dolin, eds. (2021). *Legal Informatics*. Cambridge University Press. p. 76. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-107-14272-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-107-14272-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-32)** Michael Legg; Felicity Bell (2020). *Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession*. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 180. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-5099-3183-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-5099-3183-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-33)** Daniel Martin Katz; Michael J. Bommarito; Ron Dolin, eds. (2021). *Legal Informatics*. Cambridge University Press. p. 89. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-107-14272-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-107-14272-5).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-34)** Hitesh Talwar (10 July 2025). ["Stop Debating Agentic AI's Definition. Start Demanding Results"](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/artificial-intelligence/stop-debating-agentic-ais-definition-start-demanding-results). *Bloomberg Law*. Retrieved 10 July 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-35)** [""Generative AI Tools for Non-Attorney Legal Document Preparation""](https://idea2patentai.com/articles/generative-ai-legal-tools-non-attorneys). *Idea2PatentAI*. AI Inventor Blog. Retrieved 16 January 2026.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:3_36-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:3_36-1) Neuberger, David (2016). ["British Irish Commercial Bar Association Law Forum: Technology and the Law. Closing Keynote Address"](https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-160421.pdf) (PDF). *Supreme Court (UK)*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-37)** Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group. *ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR LOW VALUE CIVIL CLAIMS*. Civil Justice Council.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-38)** Kehl, Danielle Leah; Kessler, Samuel Ari (2017). ["Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing"](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33746041). *Harvard University*. [S2CID](/source/S2CID_(identifier)) [217366408](https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:217366408).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-39)** Thomas, C.; Nunez, A. (2022). ["Automating Judicial Discretion: How Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Pretrial Adjudications Violate Equal Protection Rights on the Basis of Race"](https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1680&context=lawineq). *[Law & Inequality](/source/Law_%26_Inequality)*. **40** (2): 371–407. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.24926/25730037.649](https://doi.org/10.24926%2F25730037.649).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-40)** David Freeman Engstrom (2023). *Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice*. Cambridge University Press. p. 162. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-009-25535-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-009-25535-6).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-41)** David Freeman Engstrom (2023). *Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice*. Cambridge University Press. p. 167. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-009-25535-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-009-25535-6).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-42)** ["Client-Lawyer Relationship, Rule 1.1 Competence – Comment"](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1.html). American Bar Association. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-43)** Ambrogi, Robert. ["The Cloud Has Landed: 10 Legal Tech Innovations and What They Mean"](http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=88&Issue=4&ArticleID=23997). *Wisconsin Lawyer*. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-44)** ["Interactive Model Code of Professional Conduct"](https://flsc.ca/interactivecode/).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-45)** James N Dertouzos, Nicholas M Pace and Robert H Anderson, The Legal And Economic Implications Of Electronic Discovery (Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 2008) 3; Pavan Mediratta, "Using Legal Data Analytics To Gain A Competitive Advantage", LAW.COM (Webpage, 2017) <[https://www.law.com/native/?mvi=80e16694159446d0ae29f6c93e95806c&slreturn=20200028224509](https://www.law.com/native/?mvi=80e16694159446d0ae29f6c93e95806c&slreturn=20200028224509)>.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-46)** Bues, Micha-Manuel (16 March 2016). ["Micha-Manuel Bues Interviews CodeX Executive Director Roland Vogl"](https://law.stanford.edu/2016/03/16/micha-manuel-bues-interviews-roland-vogl/). *Stanford Law School*. Retrieved 19 February 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-47)** ["Legal Tech Funding Soars As AI Upstarts Take Over - Law360 Pulse"](https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2363506/legal-tech-funding-soars-as-ai-upstarts-take-over). *www.law360.com*. Retrieved 3 August 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-48)** ["Technology, Access to Justice and the Rule of Law"](https://events.lawsociety.org.uk/uploads/files/2f5acdb0-4227-455d-9d55-ec3e6254a5da.pdf) (PDF). *The Law Society*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-49)** ["Legal Schema and beyond – Legislate"](https://www.legislate.tech/post/legal-schema-and-beyond). *www.legislate.tech*. Retrieved 3 February 2022.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-50)** Hobbs, Stephen (14 December 2015). ["Simplifying idea | Colorado Springs Gazette, News"](http://gazette.com/simplifying-idea/article/1565568). *Gazette.com*. Retrieved 10 December 2016.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-51)** Ho, Catherine. ["FileRight Aims to Help with Immigration"](https://web.archive.org/web/20170125152948/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-37565064.html). Archived from [the original](https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-37565064.html) on 25 January 2017. Retrieved 18 October 2016.

v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Civil law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Crime Deed Doctrine Equity Evidence International law Law of obligations Private law Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public law Punishment Capital Corporal Restitution and unjust enrichment Statutory law Tort Disciplines Abortion law Agricultural law Animal law Aviation law Amnesty law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Competition law Conflict of laws Construction law Consumer protection Corporate law Cyberlaw Drugs law Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial law Financial regulation Health law public health global health Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International labour law International human rights International slavery laws International trade law Jurimetrics Labour Landlord–tenant law Law of war Legal archaeology Legal fiction Maritime law Marriage law Military law Music law Nationality law Probate Estate Will and testament Product liability Public international law Refugee law Space law Sports law State of emergency Tax law Transport law Trust law Unenforced law Sources of law Charter Legal code / Statutory law Constitution Custom Divine law Divine right Human rights Legitimacy Letters patent Man-made law Natural law Natural and legal rights Case law Precedent Law reports Legal treatise Regulations Law making Ballot measure Codification Decree Edict Executive order Proclamation Legislation Delegated legislation Regulation Reform Rulemaking Promulgation Ratification Repeal Treaty Concordat Statutory law Statute Act of parliament Act of Congress Basic structure doctrine Legal systems Civil law Common law Chinese law Legal pluralism Religious law Canon law Catholic canon law Hindu law Jain law Jewish law Parsi law Sharia Roman law Byzantine law Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Yassa Legal theory Anarchist Contract theory Comparative law Expressive function Feminist Law and economics Legal ethics Legal formalism History Libertarian International legal theory Principle of legality Principle of typicality Pseudolaw Rule of law Rule of man Sociology Jurisprudence Adjudication Administration of justice Admission to practice law Constitutionalism Criminal justice Court-martial Disbarment Dispute resolution Fiqh Lawsuit/Litigation Legal opinion Legal remedy Damages Deterrence (penology) Proportionality Reparations Legal status Judge Justice of the peace Magistrate Judgment Judicial activism Judicial interpretation Judicial misconduct Kangaroo court Judicial review Jurisdiction Jury Justice Practice of law Attorney Barrister Counsel Lawyer Legal representation Prosecutor Solicitor Question of fact Question of law Trial Trial advocacy Trier of fact Ultra vires Verdict Legal institutions Barristers' chambers Bureaucracy The bar The bench Civil society Court Ecclesiastical Court of equity Election commission Executive Judiciary Law enforcement Agency Legal education Law school Legal industry by country Legislature Military Police Political party Tribunal History History of the legal profession History of the American legal profession Women in law Law portal Category Index Outline

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Legal technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technology) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technology?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.