Computer Systems Fit for the Legal Profession?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

241 Downloads (Pure)


This essay aims to contribute robust grounds to question the Susskinds’ influential, consequentialist logic when it comes to the legitimacy criteria for wholesale automation in the legal profession. It does so by questioning their minimalist understanding of the professions. If it is our commitment to moral equality that is at stake every time lawyers (fail to) hail the specific vulnerability inherent in their professional relationship, the case for wholesale automation is turned on its head. One can no longer assume that, as a rule, wholesale automation is both legitimate and desirable, provided it improves the quality and accessibility of legal services (in an accountable and maximally transparent way). The assumption, instead, is firmly in favour of designing systems that better enable legal professionals to live up to their specific responsibility. The rest of the essay outlines key challenges in the design of such profession-specific, ‘ethics aware’ decision-support systems.
Original languageEnglish
JournalLegal Ethics
Early online date12 Dec 2018
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 12 Dec 2018

Bibliographical note

Accepted manuscript made available on SSRN prior to publication


  • Decision Support Systems
  • Augmentation
  • Ethical Agency
  • Legal Profession
  • Ethics
  • Professions
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Automated Systems
  • Susskind


Dive into the research topics of 'Computer Systems Fit for the Legal Profession?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this