Cover of book: Legal Tech
Edited Book Open Access Full access

Legal Tech

Information technology tools in the administration of justice
Editors:
Publisher:
 2021

Summary

This book offers a comprehensive consideration of the problem of linking the law of new technologies to the work of a lawyer. The authors describe the development of technology and the tendency of technology to enter the domain that until recently was reserved only for lawyers. Today, information systems can not only support the work of the lawyer, but also replace it.In this book, legal issues are weaved with technical issues that have a significant impact on the understanding of the law, but also enable the understanding of processes (including IT) that have a significant impact on the law. The authors also pay attention to the cross-border nature and related issues. With contributions byMichał Araszkiewicz, Gabriela Bar, Wilfried Bernhard, Katarzyna Biczysko-Pudełko, Maddalena Castellani, Tomasz Chomicki, Patryk Ciurak, Wojciech Cyrul, Maria Dymitruk, Ewa Fabian, Tomasz Grzegory, Agnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Iga Kurowska, Małgorzata Kurowska, Pierpaolo Marano, Vytautas Nekrošius, Robert Pająk, Aleksandra Partyk, Przemysław Polański, Rafał Prabucki, Janos Puskas, Thiago Santos Rocha, Mauro Arturo Rivera León, Enrico Maria Scavone, Rafał Skibicki, Marek Świerczyński, Dariusz Szostek, Sylwester Szczepanik, Kamil Szpyt, Michał Tabor, Gabriela Wiktorzak, Michał Wódczak, Jakub Wyczik, Anna Zalesińska, Tomasz Zalewski, Mariusz Zalucki, Mario Zanin and Zsolt Ződi.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-7879-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2283-4
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Language
English
Pages
673
Product type
Edited Book

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 10 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Introduction 11 - 14 Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Dariusz Szostek Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. DefinitionDariusz Szostek
        2. 2. The Categorisation of LegalTechDariusz Szostek
        3. 3. The Scope of the Concept of LegalTech vis-à-vis Other Concepts, such as RegTech, FinTech, Insure Tech, or Legal InformaticsDariusz Szostek
        4. 4. The Consequences of Development of LegalTechDariusz Szostek
        5. 5. Legal EngineeringDariusz Szostek
      2. Rafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
        2. 2. Code, Algorithms, Algorithmic TechnologyRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
        3. 3. Law as a CodeRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
        4. Rafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          1. 4.2. Types of Tokens - the Basic Knowledge of Every Legal EngineerRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          2. 4.3. Comparative Legal Analysis of Selected Regulations Regarding the Token. Will the European Union Synthesise It?Rafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          3. 4.4. What about Lawyers When the Code Becomes Law? Selected Legal Challenges of TokenisationRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
        5. Rafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          1. 5.1. IntroductionRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          2. 5.2. Prior controlRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          3. 5.3. Follow-up actionsRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
          4. 5.4. Soft LawRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
        6. 6. SummaryRafał Prabucki, Rafał Skibicki, Dariusz Szostek, Jakub Wyczik
      3. Maria Dymitruk Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMaria Dymitruk
        2. 2. Searching for Information on the LawMaria Dymitruk
        3. 3. The Automation of Legal Decision-Making ProcessesMaria Dymitruk
        4. 4. ConclusionsMaria Dymitruk
      4. Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionTomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        2. 2. “If Only I Had the Right Questions!” Where Are We and Where Do We Go in the Legal Tech?Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        3. 3. What’s Hot in the Legal Tech?Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        4. 4. ‘All that Glitters Is Not Gold’Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        5. 5. So, What Does ‘Artificial Intelligence’ Really Mean in the Legal Tech?Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        6. 6. Do Machines Understand Us?Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        7. 7. E-discovery - Where Work Became Technology AssistedTomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
        8. 8. OK Google, Negotiate! When Do Lawyers Become Obsolete?Tomasz Grzegory, Janos Puskas
      1. Michal Araszkiewicz Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMichal Araszkiewicz
        2. 2. Modeling Legal Reasoning and ArgumentationMichal Araszkiewicz
        3. 3. Computational Intelligence for Legal Tasks: How to Combine it with Symbolic Legal Reasoning ModelsMichal Araszkiewicz
        4. 4. ConclusionsMichal Araszkiewicz
      2. Wojciech Cyrul Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionWojciech Cyrul
        2. 2. The Role of Technology in the Darfting and Accesing of Legal TextsWojciech Cyrul
        3. 3. Computerization of the Texts of Legal ActsWojciech Cyrul
        4. 4. Machine Consumable LegislationWojciech Cyrul
        5. ConclusionsWojciech Cyrul
      3. Patryk Ciurak Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionPatryk Ciurak
        2. 2. Interpretation of Law and Interpretation of CodePatryk Ciurak
        3. 3. Testing Code and Testing LawPatryk Ciurak
        4. 4. The Beginning of the RoadPatryk Ciurak
      1. Ewa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        2. 2. Case study: using LegalTech tools in measuring digital accessibilityEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        3. 3. Lawyer's analysis of digital accessibility - methodologyEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        4. 4. Assistive technology - a new weapon in the LegalTech lawyer's arsenal?Ewa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        5. 5. Tools for testing digital accessibility in American court proceedingsEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        6. 6. Software used in expert witness testimony in the US and PolandEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
        7. 7. SummaryEwa Fabian, Przemyslaw Polanski
      2. Iga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
        2. Iga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          1. 2.1. The Most Popular ToolsIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          2. 2.2. Best Practices in Omplementing LegalTech 1.0 Solutions.Iga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
        3. Iga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          1. 3.1. General RemarksIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          2. 3.2. Document Management Automation SoftwareIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          3. 3.3. ChatbotsIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          4. 3.4. Artificial IntelligenceIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
          5. 3.5. BlockchainIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
        4. 4. LegalTech 3.0Iga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
        5. 5. SummaryIga Kurowska, Kamil Szpyt
      3. Malgorzata Kurowska Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMalgorzata Kurowska
        2. Malgorzata Kurowska
          1. 2.1. Principle of ProportionalityMalgorzata Kurowska
          2. 2.2. Principle of TransparencyMalgorzata Kurowska
          3. 2.3. Principle of AccountabilityMalgorzata Kurowska
          4. 2.4. Due DilligenceMalgorzata Kurowska
        3. Malgorzata Kurowska
          1. Malgorzata Kurowska
            1. How to classify informationMalgorzata Kurowska
            2. Context of Solution ImplementationMalgorzata Kurowska
            3. Assessing the Acceptability of Implementing the LegalTech SolutionMalgorzata Kurowska
        4. Malgorzata Kurowska
          1. Malgorzata Kurowska
            1. Risk-based Approach in Implementing LegalTechMalgorzata Kurowska
          2. Malgorzata Kurowska
            1. Identification of Risk AreasMalgorzata Kurowska
            2. Risk IdentificationMalgorzata Kurowska
            3. Risk Impact AssessmentMalgorzata Kurowska
            4. Determination of the Likelihood of a Risk OccurringMalgorzata Kurowska
            5. Estimation of Overall Risk ValueMalgorzata Kurowska
            6. Issues to be AnalysedMalgorzata Kurowska
          3. 4.3. Simplified Risk AnalysisMalgorzata Kurowska
          4. Malgorzata Kurowska
            1. Designation of Responsible PersonsMalgorzata Kurowska
          5. 4.5. Identification of CountermeasuresMalgorzata Kurowska
          6. 4.6. Risk MonitoringMalgorzata Kurowska
        5. 5. ConclusionMalgorzata Kurowska
      4. Katarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionKatarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
        2. 2. Cloud Computing 1.0Katarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
        3. 3. Cloud Computing 2.0 - or Multi-Cloud in the Work of Lawyers.Katarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
        4. Katarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
          1. 4.1 General RemarksKatarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
          2. 4.2. Smart Contract and Personal DataKatarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
          3. 4.2 Cloud Computing and Electronic CommunicationsKatarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
        5. 5. SummaryKatarzyna Biczysko-Pudelko
      5. Maria Dymitruk Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMaria Dymitruk
        2. Maria Dymitruk
          1. 2.1. Legal Tech on Administrative and Organisational ActivitiesMaria Dymitruk
          2. Maria Dymitruk
            1. 2.2.1. Crime PredictionMaria Dymitruk
            2. 2.2.2. Automated Detection of Crime and OffendersMaria Dymitruk
            3. 2.2.3. Automatic Evidence AnalysisMaria Dymitruk
            4. 2.2.4. Automating Decision-Making ProcessesMaria Dymitruk
        3. 3. Legal Tech in Law Enforcement - a Regulatory PerspectiveMaria Dymitruk
        4. 4. SummaryMaria Dymitruk
      6. Agnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Blockchain, DLT – a Foundation of LegalTechAgnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        2. 2. Influence of Blockchain on the New Paperless Approach. Datafication of the Law.Agnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        3. 3. Using Blockchain in LegalTechAgnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        4. 5. Definition of a smart contractAgnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        5. 6. Examples of the application of the smart contract in LegalTechAgnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        6. 7. Legal problems connected with the use of smart contracts in LegalTechAgnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
        7. 8. Summary: Should lawyers be smart?Agnieszka Kubiak-Cyrul, Dariusz Szostek
      7. Malgorzata Kurowska Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Data vs InformationMalgorzata Kurowska
        2. 2. Information Classification as an Information Security ToolMalgorzata Kurowska
        3. 3. Information Processing via LegalTech ToolsMalgorzata Kurowska
        4. 4. Liability for Data SecurityMalgorzata Kurowska
        5. 5. FranceMalgorzata Kurowska
        6. 6. PolandMalgorzata Kurowska
        7. 7. GermanyMalgorzata Kurowska
        8. 8. ConclusionMalgorzata Kurowska
      8. Kamil Szpyt Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionKamil Szpyt
        2. Kamil Szpyt
          1. 2.1. The Past - Professional Liability InsuranceKamil Szpyt
          2. 2.2. The Present - Cyber Risk InsuranceKamil Szpyt
          3. 2.3. The Future - Civil Liability Insurance of Artificial Intelligence System OperatorKamil Szpyt
        3. 3. SummaryKamil Szpyt
      9. Tomasz Zalewski Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionTomasz Zalewski
        2. 2. Examples of Typical LegalTech 1.0 Products and ServicesTomasz Zalewski
        3. 3. What Is LegalTech 1.0 Used For?Tomasz Zalewski
        4. 4. How to Implement and Use LegalTech 1.0 Tools?Tomasz Zalewski
        5. 5. LegalTech 2.0 - a Breakthrough in the Way We ThinkTomasz Zalewski
        6. 6. How to Implement and Use LegalTech 2.0 Tools?Tomasz Zalewski
        7. 7. How to Find an Area to Use LegalTech 2.0 Tools?Tomasz Zalewski
        8. 8. LegalTech 2.0 and the Expectations of Lawyers and ClientsTomasz Zalewski
        9. 9. Unstoppable TrendTomasz Zalewski
      1. Marek Swierczynski Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMarek Swierczynski
        2. 2 Definition of Artificial IntelligenceMarek Swierczynski
        3. 3. The "Black Box" Problem in AI Decision Making ProcessMarek Swierczynski
        4. 4. Council of Europe Work on Artificial IntelligenceMarek Swierczynski
        5. 5. Council of Europe Guidelines on Common Courts DigitalisationMarek Swierczynski
        6. 6. Summary and ConclusionsMarek Swierczynski
      2. Gabriela Wiktorzak Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionGabriela Wiktorzak
        2. 2. AI i rozwój praktyki prawaGabriela Wiktorzak
        3. Gabriela Wiktorzak
          1. 3.1. Document analysis – Document Review and E-discoveryGabriela Wiktorzak
          2. 3.2. Contract review/management softwareGabriela Wiktorzak
          3. 3.3. Legal information systems and predictive analyticsGabriela Wiktorzak
        4. 4. Compliance. Risk managementGabriela Wiktorzak
        5. 5. SummaryGabriela Wiktorzak
      3. Gabriela Bar Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionGabriela Bar
        2. 2. Robo-assistant: Support for the Lawyers and Client AdvisorGabriela Bar
        3. 3. Augmented Intelligence: Centaurs and CyborgsGabriela Bar
        4. 4. Artificial LawyerGabriela Bar
        5. 5. Instead of a Summary: Why Changes to Natural Intelligence Are NecessaryGabriela Bar
      4. Michal Wódczak Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMichal Wódczak
        2. 2. Legal Services and StandardizationMichal Wódczak
        3. 3. Technology and LegislationMichal Wódczak
        4. 4. Legal Processes and AutonomicsMichal Wódczak
        5. 5. Agent Systems and Definition of a ThingMichal Wódczak
        6. 6. ConclusionMichal Wódczak
      5. Mariusz Zalucki Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionMariusz Zalucki
        2. 2. Experience with LegalTech in the judiciaryMariusz Zalucki
        3. 3. AI in the judiciaryMariusz Zalucki
        4. 4. The potential of AI in the context of the functioning of the judiciary of the futureMariusz Zalucki
        5. 5. Dilemmas related to AI and the judiciary of the futureMariusz Zalucki
        6. 6. ConclusionsMariusz Zalucki
      1. Michal Tabor Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Electronic IdentificationMichal Tabor
        2. 2. Distributed ConfirmationsMichal Tabor
      2. Sylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        2. 2. Correspondence Exchange - Terminological RemarksSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        3. 3. Horizontal Exchange of CorrespondenceSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        4. 4. Hierarchical Exchange of CorrespondenceSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        5. 5. Electronic Delivery - eIDAS RegulationSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        6. 6. Qualified Electronic Delivery ServiceSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        7. Sylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
          1. 7.1. IntroductionSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
          2. 7.2. Common Address InfrastructureSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
          3. 7.3. Reception and Mailing BoxesSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
          4. 7.4. Mandatory Address for the Legal ProfessionSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        8. 8. Qualified Electronic Delivery in Selected EU Member StatesSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
        9. 9. The PEPPOL System - Description of the Solution Today and Development ProspectsSylwester Szczepanik, Michal Tabor
      3. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        2. 2. Transmission of Data and Making Data AvailableAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        3. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          1. 3.1. IntroductionAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          2. 3.2 Automation of Processes Through Use of Aggregated DataAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          3. 3.3 Searching Through DataAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        4. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          1. 4.1. Communication Within an OrganisationAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          2. 4.2. Communication with Parties from Outside an OrganisationAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        5. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          1. 5.1. IntroductionAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          2. 5.2. Information and Interaction ServicesAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          3. 5.3. Transactional and Integrative Services. Personalisation as the Fifth Stage of Maturity for e-ServicesAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        6. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          1. 6.1. IntroductionAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          2. 6.2. Electronic Hearings According to the Example of European StatesAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
        7. Anna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
          1. 7.1. PolandAnna Zalesinska, Dariusz Szostek
      4. Tomasz Chomicki Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionTomasz Chomicki
        2. 2. CybersecurityTomasz Chomicki
        3. 3. Cybers Hygiene – A Security PackageTomasz Chomicki
        4. 4. AI and ML vs Internet SecurityTomasz Chomicki
        5. 5. The Forecast of the FutureTomasz Chomicki
      5. Robert Pajak Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. IntroductionRobert Pajak
        2. 2. The Concept of Information Security, Data Protection and Cyber securityRobert Pajak
        3. Robert Pajak
          1. 3.1 General Comments. Sources of Information Security Best Practices.Robert Pajak
          2. 3.2. ISO 27001Robert Pajak
          3. 3.3. NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)Robert Pajak
          4. 3.4. CIS Controls/CIS BenchmarksRobert Pajak
          5. Robert Pajak
            1. 3.5.1. International Bar AssociationRobert Pajak
            2. 3.5.2. Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeRobert Pajak
        4. Robert Pajak
          1. 4.1. Roles and ResponsibilitiesRobert Pajak
          2. 4.2. „Digital Hygiene”Robert Pajak
          3. 4.3. Insider ThreatsRobert Pajak
          4. 4.4. Multi-layer SecurityRobert Pajak
          5. 4.5. OutsourcingRobert Pajak
        5. 5. Summary. Security Is a Process.Robert Pajak
    1. Thiago Santos Rocha Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. IntroductionThiago Santos Rocha
      2. 2. Legaltech in BrazilThiago Santos Rocha
      3. 3. Blockchain and DLT in Government SystemsThiago Santos Rocha
      4. 4. Online Court ProceedingsThiago Santos Rocha
      5. 5. Artificial Intelligence in the Justice SystemThiago Santos Rocha
      6. 6. Plans for the FutureThiago Santos Rocha
      7. 7. Final ConsiderationsThiago Santos Rocha
    2. Maddalena Castellani Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Maddalena Castellani
        1. Bejing Internet CourtMaddalena Castellani
      2. 2. Blockchain and DLT in government systems. Whether there are judicial systems or other registers using blockchain. Legal provisions linking a blockchain entry to a legal presumption.Maddalena Castellani
      3. 4. Online court proceedings. Are it acceptable, in what way, the way of communication, what information systems are used. How is the judgment issued. Is the connection from the court or can it be made...Maddalena Castellani
      4. 5. AI in the justice system. How is it used. Is it permissible to make automatic decisions. China’s Netcourt use AI in the justice system.Maddalena Castellani
    3. Iga Kurowska Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. A progressive but satisfactory Legaltech adoption by French law firmsIga Kurowska
      2. 2. An ambitious but underperformed digital transformation of the French justice systemIga Kurowska
      3. 3. E-deliveryIga Kurowska
      4. 4. Plans for the futureIga Kurowska
    4. Wilfried Bernhardt Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Wilfried Bernhardt
        1. 1.1. CourtsWilfried Bernhardt
        2. 1.2. Law firmsWilfried Bernhardt
        3. 1.3. ArbitrationWilfried Bernhardt
      2. 2. Blockchain and DLT in government systems. Whether there are judicial systems or other registers using blockchain. Legal provisions linking a blockchain entry to a legal presumption.Wilfried Bernhardt
      3. 3. Electronic communication with the court. Legal basis, method of communication, transmission of documents.Wilfried Bernhardt
      4. 4. Online court proceedings. Are they acceptable, in what way, the way of communication, what information systems are used? How is the judgment issued? Is the connection from the court or can it be ma...Wilfried Bernhardt
      5. 5. AI in the justice system and automatic decisions.Wilfried Bernhardt
      6. 6. The plans for the future.Wilfried Bernhardt
    5. Zsolt Ződi Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Zsolt Ződi
        1. 1.1. IntroductionZsolt Ződi
        2. 1.2. Technology at the CourtsZsolt Ződi
        3. 1.3. Technology at the Public Prosecutors’ OrganisationZsolt Ződi
        4. 1.4. Technology at Law FirmsZsolt Ződi
      2. 2. Blockchain within the GovernmentZsolt Ződi
      3. Zsolt Ződi
        1. 3.1. A Short History of Electronic Litigation in HungaryZsolt Ződi
        2. 3.2. Legal BasisZsolt Ződi
        3. 3.3. Details of the electronic communication with courtsZsolt Ződi
        4. Zsolt Ződi
          1. 3.4.1. Company Registration Procedure.Zsolt Ződi
          2. 3.4.2. Order for Payment Procedure.Zsolt Ződi
      4. 4. Online ProceduresZsolt Ződi
      5. 5. Use of Artificial Intelligence, and Automated Decision-makingZsolt Ződi
      6. 6. Future PlansZsolt Ződi
    6. Pierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. IntroductionPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
      2. Pierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        1. 2.1. Legal definition of DLTs and smart contractPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        2. 2.2. Institutional and governmental initiativesPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        3. 2.3. Applications of DLTs in the legal sectorPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
      3. Pierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        1. 3.1. Notifications of procedural documents by electronic meansPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        2. 3.2. Filing of procedural documents and evidence by electronic meansPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        3. 3.3. Computer trial dossierPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        4. 3.4. Creation of computer documentPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
        5. 3.5. Communication of the sentence and access to consultation servicesPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
      4. 4. Civil judicial proceedings during epidemiological emergencyPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
      5. 5. Alternative dispute resolution systemsPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
      6. 6. Conclusive remarksPierpaolo Marano, Mario Zanin, Enrico Maria Scavone
    7. Vytautas Nekrošius Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. To which extent are LegalTech means used in your country: in courts, arbitrations, law firms?Vytautas Nekrošius
      2. 2. Are Blockchain and DLT technologies used in courts or other public institutions?Vytautas Nekrošius
      3. Vytautas Nekrošius
        1. Future plansVytautas Nekrošius
    8. Mauro Arturo Rivera León Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. LegalTech used in MexicoMauro Arturo Rivera León
      2. 2. Blockchain and DLT in government systems.Mauro Arturo Rivera León
      3. 3. Electronic communication with the Court.Mauro Arturo Rivera León
      4. 4. Online court proceedings.Mauro Arturo Rivera León
      5. 5. AI in the justice system.Mauro Arturo Rivera León
      6. 6. Future plans and challenges.Mauro Arturo Rivera León
    9. Aleksandra Partyk Download chapter (PDF)
      1. IntroductionAleksandra Partyk
      2. Electronic writ of payment procedureAleksandra Partyk
      3. Programs used for managing court proceedings and secretariat’s work (Sawa, Sędzia-2)Aleksandra Partyk
      4. Software used for recording court sessionsAleksandra Partyk
      5. Software used for operating remote court hearingsAleksandra Partyk
      6. Information PortalsAleksandra Partyk
      7. PESEL-SADAleksandra Partyk
      8. System of Random Allocation of CasesAleksandra Partyk
      9. SummaryAleksandra Partyk
  5. Summary of the book 615 - 616 Download chapter (PDF)
  6. About the authors 617 - 628 Download chapter (PDF)
  7. Bibliography 629 - 673 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (738)

  1. AB2L, ‘Radar de Lawtechs e Legaltechs’ (ab2l.org.br) <https://ab2l.org.br/radar-lawtechs/> accessed 10 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  2. Abrams I R, ‘Statutory Protection of the Algorithm in a Computer Program: A Comparison of the Copyright and patent laws’ (1989) 9:2 Computer Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  3. Abschlussbericht der Länderarbeitgruppe ‘Legal Tech: Herausforderungen für die Justiz’(Schleswig-Holstein, 2019), <https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Landesregierung/II/Minister/Justizministerkonferenz/Downloads/190605_beschluesse/TOPI_11_Abschlussbericht.pdf;jsessionid=403E9295A2AF9CB0FBA9909024CD2AFA.delivery2-replication?__blob=publicationFile&v=1> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  4. Accident Compensation Better Rules Discovery Team ‘Exploring Machine Consumable Accident Compensation Legislation. Lessons for a structural rewrite of the AC Act and opportunities to make it machine consumable’ (The Service Innovation Lab, 1 July 2019) <https://serviceinnovationlab. github.io/assets/Exploring_Machine_Consumable_Code_With_ACC.pdf> accessed 30 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  5. Adamczewski P, `Ku dojrzałości cyfrowej organizacji inteligentnych‘, (2018) 161 Studia i Prace. Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów; Open Google Scholar
  6. Adamczewski P, `Organizacje inteligentne w zintegrowanym rozwoju gospodarki` (2016) 2 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Open Google Scholar
  7. African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, ‘ARIPO Model Law on Copyright and Related Rights’ (ARIPO, July 2019) <https://www.aripo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ARIPO-Model-Law-on-Copyright-and-Related-Rights.pdf> accessed 11 December 2020. Open Google Scholar
  8. Agarib A, ‘Dubai Police unveil Artificial Intelligence projects, Smart Tech’ (Khaleej Times, 12 March 2018) <https://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/dubai/dubai-police-unveil-artificial-intelligence-projects-smart-tech> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  9. Agnoloni T, Francesconi E and Spinosa P, ‘xmLegesEditor: an OpenSource Visual XML Editor for supporting Legal National Standards’ in Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop (European Press Academic Publishing 2007); Open Google Scholar
  10. Alchourrón C E and Bulygin E, Normative Systems (Springer-Verlag 1971); Open Google Scholar
  11. Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preotiuc-Pietro D and Lampos V, ‘Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective’ (2016), 2 Perrj Computer Science; Open Google Scholar
  12. Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preotiuc-Pietro D and Lampos V, ‘Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective’ (2016) 2 PeerJ Computer Science; Open Google Scholar
  13. Aleven V, Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through A Model and Examples (University of Pittsburgh 1997) <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.47.3347&rep=rep1&type=pdf> access 10 May 2021; Open Google Scholar
  14. Alexy R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, transl. J. Rivers (Oxford University Press 2002); Open Google Scholar
  15. Al-Kofahi K, ‘Cognitive Computing: Transforming Knowledge Work, Transforming Knowledge Work’ (27 January 2017) <www.blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/cognitive-computing-transforming-knowledge-work/> accessed 15 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  16. Allen C, ‘The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity’ (Life With Alarcity, 25 April 2016) <http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html> accessed 21 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  17. Alpaydin E, Machine Learning. The New AI (The MIT Press 2016); Open Google Scholar
  18. Alsop T, ‘Legal Tech Market Revenue Worldwide from 2019 to 2025, by Business Type’ (Statista, 26 January 2021) <www.statista.com/statistics/1168096/legal-tech-market-revenue-by-business-type-worldwide/> accessed 30 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  19. Ambrogi R, ‘A Chronology of Legal Technology 1842-1995’, <https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/02/chronology-of-legal-technology-1842.html> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  20. Ambrogi R, ‘At $1.2 Billion, 2019 Is A Record Year for Legal Tech Investments - And It's Only September’, (Lawsites 14 February 2010) <https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2019/09/at-1-1-billion-2019-is-a-record-year-for-legal-tech-investments-and-its-only-september.html> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  21. Ambrogi R, ‘Judge Penalizes Lawyers For Not Using Artificial Intelligence’ <abovethelaw.com/2019/01/judge-penalizes-lawyers-for-not-using-artificial-intelligence/>, accessed: 13 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  22. Amendolagine V, ‘Percorsi di giurisprudenza - il processo civile telematico a cinque anni dalla sua introduzione’ (2020) 1 Giurisprudenza Italiana; Open Google Scholar
  23. Amrosz M, ’Sztuczna inteligencja z obowiązkowym ubezpieczeniem OC?’ (2021) 5 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar
  24. Anand S A pioneer in real estate blockchain emerges in Europe, <https://www.wsj.com/ articles/a-pioneer-in-real-estate-blockchain-emerges-in-europe-1520337601> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  25. Andoni M, Robu V, Flynn D, Abram S, Geach D, Jenkins D, McCallum P and Peacock A, ‘Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities‘ (2019) 100 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; Open Google Scholar
  26. Andrews v. Blick Art Materials LLC 286 F Supp 3d 365 (NY 2017); Open Google Scholar
  27. Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S and Kirchner L, ′Machine Bias′, (ProPublica, 23 May 2016) <https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  28. Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S and Kirchner L, ‘Machine bias’ (Pro Publica, 23 May 2016) <https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing> accessed 11 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  29. Araszkiewicz M, ‘Limits of Constraint Satisfaction Theory of Coherence as a Theory of (Legal) Reasoning’ in Michał Araszkiewicz and Jaromír Šavelka (eds) Coherence. Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence (Springer 2013); Open Google Scholar
  30. Araszkiewicz M, ‘Towards Systematic Research on Statutory Interpretation in AI and Law’ in Kevin D. Ashley (ed) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2013: The Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 259 (IOS Press 2013); Open Google Scholar
  31. Araszkiewicz M, Żurek T, ‘Interpreting Agents’ in Floris Bex, Serena Villata (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2016: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 294 (IOS Press 2016); Open Google Scholar
  32. Araya D, ‘3 Things You Need To Know About Augmented Intelligence’ (Forbes 22 January 2019) <forbes.com/sites/danielaraya/2019/01/22/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-augmented-intelligence/?sh=4cda84bd3fdc>, accessed: 10 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  33. Armour J, Parnham R and Sako M, ‘Augmented Lawyering’ (2020) 558 European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper; Open Google Scholar
  34. Artificial Lawyer, ‘France’s Controversial Judge Data Ban – The Reaction‘ (Artificial Lawyer, 5 June 2019) <https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2019/06/05/frances-controversial-judge-data-ban-the-reaction/> accessed 31 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  35. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, ‘Automatically Classifying Case Texts and Predicting Outcomes’ (2009) 17(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  36. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, ‘An AI model of case-based legal argument from a jurisprudential viewpoint’ (2002) 10 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  37. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics. New Tools for Legal Practice in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press 2017); Open Google Scholar
  38. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press 2017); Open Google Scholar
  39. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, Modeling Legal Argument. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (MIT Press 1990); Open Google Scholar
  40. Atienza M and Ruiz-Manero J, A Theory of Legal Sentences (Springer 1998); Open Google Scholar
  41. Atkinson K and Bench-Capon T, Argumentation Schemes in AI and Law (in press 2021); Open Google Scholar
  42. Atkinson K and Bench-Capon T, Bench-Capon T and Bollegala D, ‘Explanation in AI and law: Past, present and future’ (2020) 289: 103387 Artificial Intelligence. Open Google Scholar
  43. Atkinson K and Bench-Capon T, Bench-Capon T, ‘Reasoning with Legal Cases: Analogy or Rule Application?’ in Floris Bex (ed) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2019 (ACM 2019); Open Google Scholar
  44. Atkinson K and Bench-Capon T, Bench-Capon T, Bex F, Gordon T F, Prakken H, Sartor G, Verheij B, ‘In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law’ (2020) 28(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  45. Bacon J, Michels J D, Millard C and Singh J, ‘Blockchain Demystified’ (2017) 268/2017 Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3091218> accessed 6 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  46. Banasikowska J, Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz A, `Czynniki kształtujące poziom akceptacji i poziom dojrzałości systemów e-administracji na tle rozwoju społeczeństwa informacyjnego` (2016) 308 Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Open Google Scholar
  47. Bandara E, Keong Ng W, Ranasinghe N, De Zoysa K, ‘Aplos: Smart contract Made Smart’ in Zibin Zheng, Hong-Ning Da, Mingdong Tang, Xiangping Chen (eds), Blockchain and Trustworthy System (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar
  48. Bar G, ‘Przejrzystość, w tym wyjaśnialność, jako wymóg prawny dla systemów Sztucznej Inteligencji’ (2020) 20 Prawo Nowych Technologii; Open Google Scholar
  49. Bar G, ‘Robot personhood, czyli po co nam antropocentryczna Sztuczna Inteligencja’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds.), Prawo Sztucznej Inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  50. Baran P, ‘On Distributed Communications: I. Introduction to Distributed Communications Networks‘ (1964) RAND Corporation <https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3420.html> accessed 1 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  51. Baroni P, Gabbay D, Parent X, van der Torre L (eds) Handbook of Formal Argumentation (College Publications 2018); Open Google Scholar
  52. Barotanyi B, ‘E-Recht: Law Making in a Contemporary Way’ (2007) 1 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology; Open Google Scholar
  53. Barraclough T, Fraser H and Barnes C, ‘Legislation as a code for New Zeland: opportunities, risks, and recomendations’ (2021) 3 NZLFRRp 12-13; Open Google Scholar
  54. Barredo Arrieta A, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, Bennetot A, Tabik S, Barbado A, Garcia S, Gil-Lopez S, Molina D, Benjamins R, Chatila R and Herrera F, ‘Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI’ (2020) 58 Information Fusion; Open Google Scholar
  55. Barta P, Kawecki M in Paweł Litwiński (ed), Rozporządzenie UE w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych i swobodnym przepływem takich danych. Komentarz, Warszawa (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  56. Baum S, “A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy” (Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 17 January 2017) 29 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3070741> accessed 4 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  57. Beck K, Test Driven Development: By Example (1 ed., Addison-Wesley Professional 2002); Open Google Scholar
  58. Beconcini P, ’More ’’NetCourts’’ Opening in China’ (Squire Patton Boggs, 14 November 2018) <https://www.iptechblog.com/2018/11/more-netcourts-opening-in-china/> accessed 21 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  59. Belew R K, ‘A connectionist approach to conceptual information retrieval’ (Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '87, Boston, 27-29 May 1987); Open Google Scholar
  60. Bellinger G and Castro D, Mills A, ‘Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom` (2004) <http://www.Systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  61. Bench-Capon T and others, ‘A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law’ (2012) 20 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  62. Bench-Capon T and Coenen F P, ‘Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems.’ (1992) 1 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  63. Bench-Capon T, ‘Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law’, 11(1-2) Argument and Computation; Open Google Scholar
  64. Bench-Capon T, ‘HYPO'S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue’ (2017), 25(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  65. Bench-Capon T and Sartor G, ‘A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values’, 150(102) Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar
  66. Berek M, ‘Rządowa procedura prawodawcza i jej znaczenie dla jakości stanowionego prawa.’ in Federczyk W. and Peszkowski S. (eds.), Doskonalenie i standaryzacja procesu legislacyjnego – dobre praktyki opracowane w ramach projektu LEGIS (Krajowa Szkoła Administracji Publicznej im. Prezydenta Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej Lecha Kaczyńskiego 2019); Open Google Scholar
  67. Berger-Walliser G, Barton T D and Haapio H, ‘From Visualization to Legal Design: A Collaborative and Creative Process’ (2017) 54:2 American Business Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  68. Berman D H and Hafner C D, ‘Representing Teleological Structure in Case-based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link’ in Anja Oskamp and Kevin Ashley (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law, ICAIL '93 (ACM 1993); Open Google Scholar
  69. Bex F, Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. A Formal Hybrid Theory, (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  70. Biallaß I D in Stephan Oryand Stephan Weth (eds) Elektronischer Rechtsverkehr (1st edition, juris Allianz, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  71. Bieluk M, ‘Cywilnoprawna odpowiedzialność profesjonalnego pełnomocnika za błąd’ (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku 2019) Open Google Scholar
  72. Bigelow R P, ‘The Use of Computers in the Law’, (1973) 24, 4 Hastings Law Journal <https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol24/iss4/4> access: 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  73. BIK, ’Cybersecurity of Poles 2020’ (Biuro prasowe Grupy BIK, 26 January 2021) <https://media.bik.pl/informacje-prasowe/637189/dobre-praktyki-ochrony-danych-osobowych> accessed 31 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  74. Bing J, ‘Performance of Legal Text Retrieval Systems: The Curse of Boole’ (1987) 79 Law. Libr. J.; Open Google Scholar
  75. Bing J, ′Let there be LITE: a brief history of legal information retrieval′ (2010), 1 European Journal of Law and Technology; Open Google Scholar
  76. Black H C, ‘Token’, The Black’s Law Dictionary (Rev 4th edn, West Publishing Co. 1968); Open Google Scholar
  77. Black N, ‘The Latest on Legal Document Management Software’ (ABA Journal, 27 April 2020) <www.abajournal.com/web/article/the-latest-on-legal-document-management-software> accessed 29 May 2020; Open Google Scholar
  78. Błaszczak A, ‘Cyberprzestępczość: 2021 będzie rokiem wymuszeń w Internecie’ <www.rp.pl/Biznes/201209783-Cyberprzestepczosc-2021-bedzie-rokiem-wymuszen-w-Internecie.html> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  79. Bodo B, Gervais D and Quintais J P, ‘Blockchain and Smart Contracts: the Missing Link in Copyright Licensing?’ (2018) 26 International Journal of Law and Information Technology <https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article/26/4/311/5106727> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  80. Boicu M, Tecuci G, Stanescu B, Balan G and Popovici E, ‘Ontologies and the Knowledge Acquisition Bottleneck’, <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228549124_Ontologies_and_the_knowledge _acquisition_bottleneck/link/549dbfd20cf2fedbc31198ec/download> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  81. Bongiovanni G, Postema G, Rotolo A, Sartor G, Valentini C and Walton D (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation (Springer 2018); Open Google Scholar
  82. Boris M, ‘Top Trends in Contract Management 2020’ (Contractbook, 31 August 2020) <www.contractbook.com/legaltechinstitute/top-trends-in-contract-management-2020> accessed 3 September 2020. Open Google Scholar
  83. Borstrom N, Superinteligencja. Scenariusze, strategie, zagrożenia (Helion, Gliwice 2016); Open Google Scholar
  84. Bosilkovsky I, ‘Stanford Grad Who Created The World’s First ’Robot Lawyer” Raises $ 12 Million In Series A’ (Forbes 23 June2020), <www.forbes.com/sites/igorbosilkovski/2020/06/23/stanford-grad-who-created-the-worlds-first-robot-lawyer-raises-12-million-in-series-a/?sh=1f6b03d03309> accessed 7 January2021; Open Google Scholar
  85. Bostick K L, 'Pie in the Sky: Cloud Computing brings an End to the Professionalism Paradigm in the Practice of Law‘, (2012) 60, 5 Buffalo Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  86. Bower J L and Christiensen C M, ‘Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave’ (January-February 1995) Harvard Business Review <https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave> accessed 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  87. Branting K and others ′Semi-Supervised Methods for Explainable Legal Prediction′ (Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL '19), Montreal, 17 – 21 June 2019); Open Google Scholar
  88. Branting K, ‘Building explanations from rules and structured cases’ (1991) 34(6) International Journal of Man–Machine Studies; Open Google Scholar
  89. Branting K, Pfeifer C, Brown B, Ferro L, Aberdeen J, Weiss B, Pfaff M and Liao B, ‘Scalable and explainable legal prediction’ (2020) Artificial Intelligence and Law <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09273-1> accessed 10 May 2021; Open Google Scholar
  90. Bratus S, Lembree A and Shubina A, 'Software on the witness stand: what should it take for us to trust it?' in Alessandro Acquisti, Sean W Smith, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi (eds), Trust and Trustworthy Computing, Third International Conference, TRUST 2010, Berlin, Germany, June 21-23, 2010, Proceedings (Springer 2010); Open Google Scholar
  91. Brauer J, Programming Smalltalk – Object-Orientation from the Beginning (Springer 2015); Open Google Scholar
  92. Braun S, `Remote Interpreting` in Holly Mikkelson and Renėe. Jourdenais (eds) Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (Routledge 2015) 352. Open Google Scholar
  93. Brazier F MT and others, ‘Agents and Service-Oriented Computing for Autonomic Computing: A Research Agenda’ (2009) 13(3) IEEE Internet Computing; Open Google Scholar
  94. Brennan T, Dieterich W and Ehret B, ‘Evaluating the predictive validity of the Compas risk and needs assessment system’ (2009) 1 Criminal Justice and Behavior; Open Google Scholar
  95. Breuker J, Casanovas P, Klein M C.A, Francesconi E ‘The Flood, the Channels and the Dykes: Managing Legal Information in a Globalized and Digital World’ in Joost Breuker, Pompeu Casanovas, Michel C.A. Klein, Enrico Francesconi (eds), Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Channeling the Legal Information Flood (Amsterdam 2009); Open Google Scholar
  96. Browne O and Pizzey H, ‘Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd: A Landmark Decision on Predictive Coding in e-Discovery’ (Latham.London, 15 July 2016) <https://www.latham.london/2016/07/pyrrho-investments-ltd-v-mwb-property-ltd-a-landmark-decision-on-predictive-coding-in-e-discovery/> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  97. Brożek B, Rationality and Discourse. Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law (Wolters Kluwer 2007); Open Google Scholar
  98. Buchanan B and Headrick T, ′Some Speculation About Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning′ (1970) 23, 1 Stan. L.aw Rev; Open Google Scholar
  99. Buchanan B, Shortliffe E H, Rule-based Expert Systems. The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project (Reading 1984); Open Google Scholar
  100. Bues M M and Matthaei E, ‘LegalTech on the Rise: technology Changes Legal Work Behaviors, But Does Not Replace Its Profession’ in Kai Jacob, Dierk Schnidler and Roger Strathausen (eds), Liquid Legal (Springer International Publishing 2017); Open Google Scholar
  101. Bues M M, ‘What AI in Law Can and Can’t Do’ (European Legal Tech Association) <www.europe-legaltech.org/what-ai-in-law-can-and-cant-do/> accessed 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  102. Burrell J, ‘How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms‘ (2016) 3(1) Big Data & Society; Open Google Scholar
  103. Buss S R, Kechris A S, Pillay A and Shore R A, ‘The Prospects for Mathematical Logic in the Twenty-first Century’ (2001) 7 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic; Open Google Scholar
  104. Butterworth M L, ‘The ICO and artificial intelligence: The role of fairness in the GDPR framework’ (2018) 2 Computer Law Security Review; Open Google Scholar
  105. Bygrave L and Tosoni L, ‘Commentary on Article 4’ in Christopher Kuner, Lee A. Bygrave, Christopher Docksey (eds) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Commentary (OUP 2020); Open Google Scholar
  106. Cahuc P, Malherbet F and Prat J, ‘The detrimental effect of job protection on employment: Evidence from France’ (2019) Iza Institute of Labor Economics; Open Google Scholar
  107. Calegari R and Sartor G, ‘A Model for the Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation’ in Serena Villata, Jakub Harašta and Petr Kremen (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2020: The Thirty-third Annual Conference, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 334 (IOS Press 2020); Open Google Scholar
  108. Callister P, ‘Law, Artificial Intelligence, and Natural Language Processing: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to My Search Results’ (2020) 112 Law Library Journal 161-212 <www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3712306> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  109. Cambridge Dictionary, ‘Token’ <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/token> accessed 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  110. Campos J, ‘La justicia penal en tiempos del Covid-19. Los retos de las videoconferencias’(2020) VI, 6 Paréntesis legal; Open Google Scholar
  111. Canivet G, ‘«Preuve et Blockchain», présentation de la table ronde’, (2019) 2 Dalloz IP/IT 2019; Open Google Scholar
  112. Carabantes M, ‘Black-box artificial intelligence: an epistemological and critical analysis‘ (2019) 35 AI & Society; Open Google Scholar
  113. Cardenas J, ‘La nueva Ley de Amparo”, Cuestiones Constitucionales’(2013) 29 Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional; Open Google Scholar
  114. Carneiro D, Novais P, Andrade F, Zeleznikow J and Neves J, ‘ODR: an Artificial Intelligence Perspective‘ (2014) 41 Artificial Intelligence Review; Open Google Scholar
  115. Carnelutti F, La prova civile. Parte generale. Il concetto giuridico della prova ( Giuffrè, 1992) 9. Open Google Scholar
  116. Carnevali D, ‘Great Success that Was on the Brink of Failure: The Case of a Techno-Legal Assemblage in the "Civil Trial On-Line" System in Italy’ (2019) 8(2) EQPAM; Open Google Scholar
  117. Casanovas P, Palmirani M, Peroni S, van Engers T and Vitali F, ‘Special Issue on the Semantic Web for the Legal Domain Guest Editors’ Editorial: The Next Step’ (2016) Semantic Web Journal <http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/special-issue-semantic-web-legal-domain-guest-editors%E2%80%99-editorial-next-step> access: 16 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  118. Case 128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:407; Open Google Scholar
  119. Case 393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace - Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvu kultury [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:816; Open Google Scholar
  120. Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems [2020] EU:C:2020:559; Open Google Scholar
  121. Case N, ‘How To Become A Centaur’ (2018) Journal of Design and Science MIT Media Lab <jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/issue3-case/release/6>, accessed: 14 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  122. Casellas N, Legal Ontology Engineering. Methodologies, Modelling Trends, and the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  123. Castellani M, Pomi P, Triberti C and Turato A (eds), Blockchain: Guida pratica tecnico giuridica all'uso (Goware 2019); Open Google Scholar
  124. CCBE, ‘Komunikacja elektroniczna i Internet –przewodnik CCBE’ (2013)142 Radca Prawny Dodatek Naukowy; Open Google Scholar
  125. CCBE, 'CCBE GUIDANCE On Improving The IT Security Of Lawyers Against Unlawful Surveillance' (ccbe.eu, 2016) <https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20160520_CCBE_Guidance_on_Improving_the_IT_Security_of_Lawyers_Against_Unlawful_Surveillance.pdf> accessed 17 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  126. CCBE, Considerations on the legal aspects of artificial intelligence (2020) <https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20200220_CCBE-considerations-on-the-Legal-Aspects-of-AI.pdf> accessed 12 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  127. CEF Digital, ‘eID’ <https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eID> accessed: 21 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  128. Cellan-Jones R, ′Dubai Police Unveil Robot Officer′ (BBC, 24 May 2017) <https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40026940> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  129. Center Information Policy Leadership ‘Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection: Delivering Sustainable AI Accountability in Practice. First. Report: Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection in Tension’ (2018) <https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_ai_first_report_-_artificial_intelligence_and_data_protection_in_te....pdf> accessed 8 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  130. CEPEJ ‘Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (CEPEJ,2018); Open Google Scholar
  131. CEPEJ, ‘Possible introduction of a mechanism for certifying artificial intelligence tools and services in the sphere of justice and the judiciary: Feasibility Study’ (15Rev, CEPEJ, 8 December 2020); Open Google Scholar
  132. Chan J BL, ′Technological Game: How Information Technology is Transforming Police Practice′ (2001) 1 Criminal Justice: The International Journal of Policy and Practice; Open Google Scholar
  133. Chan V and Koo A M, ‘Blockchain Evidence in Internet Courts in China: The Fast Track for Evidence Collection for Online Disputes’ (Lexology, 15 July 2020) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1631e87b-155a-40b4-a6aa-5260a2e4b9bb> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  134. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391; Open Google Scholar
  135. Chaudhuri A, Mandaviya K, Badelia P and Ghosh S K, ′Optical Character Recognition Systems′ in Arindam Chaudhuri, Krupa Mandaviya, Pratixa Badelia and Soumya K Ghosh (eds) ‘Optical Character Recognition Systems for Different Languages with Soft Computing′, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing Vol. 352 (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  136. Check Point Data, ‘Raport Cyberbezpieczeństwa’ (2020); Open Google Scholar
  137. Chłopecki A, Sztuczna inteligencja - szkice prawnicze i futurologiczne (2nd edn, C. H. Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar
  138. Chłopecki A, Sztuczna inteligencja: szkice prawnicze i futurologiczne (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  139. Chmieliński M, 'Możliwości wspomagania wybranych ekspertyz i opinii specjalistycznych w obszarze bezpieczeństwa przy wykorzystaniu różnych programów komputerowych' (2017) 8 2(28) Problemy mechatroniki. Uzbrojenie, lotnictwo, inżynieria bezpieczeństwa; Open Google Scholar
  140. Chozick R, ‘The Major Differences Between Digital Forensics and E-discovery’ (Flashback Data, 30 June 2017) <www.flashbackdata.com/digital-forensics-vs-ediscovery/> accessed 20 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  141. Christensen C, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston (MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997); Open Google Scholar
  142. Christian G, ‘Predictive Coding: Adopting and Adapting Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Civil Litigation’ (2019) 97 The Canadian Bar Review; Open Google Scholar
  143. CIO, ‘Defining your data strategy for a multi-cloud world’ <https://www.cio.com/playlist/the-cloud-control-room/collection/cloud-operations-and-management/article/defining-your-data-strategy-for-a-multi-cloud-world> accessed 18 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  144. Clegg S, `Globalizing the Intelligent Organization: Learning Organizations, Smart Workers, (Not So) Clever Countries and the Sociological Imagination, Management Learning` (1999) Sage journals <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350507699303001> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  145. CNIL, ‘Blockchain: Solutions for a responsible use of the blockchain in the context of personal data’ <https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/blockchain_en.pdf> accessed 11 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  146. Coelho F and Younes G, ‘The GDPR-Blockchain paradox: a work around’ (W-GCS'18 2018: 1st workshop on GDPR compliant systems, co-located with 19th ACM international middleware conference, Rennes, 2018); Open Google Scholar
  147. Cohen M A, ‘The Rise of Legal Tech Incubators and Why Allen & Overy's 'Fuse' Has the Right Stuff’ (Forbes 12 February 2018) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2018/02/12/the-rise-of-legal-tech-incubators-and-why-allen-overys-fuse-has-the-right-stuff/#10482014494d> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  148. Cole F K, ‘In What Format Should I Make My Production? And, Does Format Matter?’ (JD Supra, 3 June 2019) <https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-what-format-should-i-make-my-61643/> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  149. Cole K, ‘Judges Make the Case for TAR’ (Farrell Fritz, 17 February 2021) <www.allaboutediscovery.com/2021/02/judges-make-the-case-for-tar/> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  150. Collins A M and Quillian R M, ‘Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory’ (1969) 8(2) Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior; Open Google Scholar
  151. Collins P, ‘What Is a Blockchain Oracle?’ (Medium, 2 September 2020) <https://medium.com/better-programming/what-is-a-blockchain-oracle-f5ccab8dbd72> accessed 10 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  152. Collomb A, De Filippi P, Sok K, ‘Blockchain Technology and Financial Regulation: A Risk-Based Approach to the Regulation of ICOs’ (2019) 10 European Journal of Risk Regulation <doi:10.1017/err.2019.41> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  153. Competition & Markets Authority (UK), ‘Algorithms: How they can reduce competition and harm consumers’ (Crown, 2021) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954331/Algorithms_++.pdf> accessed 19 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  154. Conrad J G, ‘E-Discovery revisited: The need for artificial intelligence beyond information retrieval’(2010) 4 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  155. Conselho Nacional de Justiça, ’Justiça Em Números 2020’ (Conselho Nacional de Justiça 2020) 93 <https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WEB-V3-Justiça-em-Números-2020-atualizado-em-25-08-2020.pdf> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  156. Conselho Nacional de Justiça, 'Inteligência Artificial No Poder Judiciário Brasileiro' (Conselho Nacional de Justiça 2019) 37 <https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Inteligencia_artificial_no_poder_judiciario_brasileiro_2019-11-22.pdf> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  157. Consolo C, Spiegazioni di diritto processuale civile (2nd ed., Giappichelli, Torino, 2014); Open Google Scholar
  158. Consumer Protection Federal Agency, Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor, ‘Informe Anual de la Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor 2019’ (PROFECO, 2019); Open Google Scholar
  159. Contissa G, Godano F and Sartor G, ‘Computation, Cybernetics and the Law at the Origins of Legal Informatics’ [in:] Simona Chiodo and Viola Schiaffonati (eds), Italian Philosophy of Technology: Socio-Cultural, Legal, Scientific and Aesthetic Perspectives on Technology (Vol. 35, Springer 2021); Open Google Scholar
  160. Cooper S, Cyber Insurance, [w:] Peter Rogan (ed), The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review, USA (Law Business Research Ltd 2020) <https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-insurance-and-reinsurance-law-review/editors-preface> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  161. Coormen T H, Algorithms Unlocked (MIT Press 2013); Open Google Scholar
  162. Corea F, ‘Distributed Artificial Intelligence. A primer on Multi-Agent Systems, Agent-Based Modeling, and Swarm Intelligence’ (Medium March 2019) <https://francesco-ai.medium.com/distributed-artificial-intelligence-3e3491e0771c>, accessed on 14 January 2020; Open Google Scholar
  163. Corr J, `An introduction to the digital maturity model` (2020) <https://www.seerinteractive.com/blog/introduction-to-digital-maturity/> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  164. Corrales M, Jurčcys M and Kousiouris G, ‘Smart Contracts and Smart Disclosure: Coding a GDPR Compliance Framework’ in Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick and Helena Haapio (eds), Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  165. Corrales M, Fenwick M and Haapio H, ‘Digital Technologies, Legal Design and the Future of the Legal Profession‘ in MarceloCorrales, Mark Fenwick and Helena Haapio (eds) Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain (Springer, 2019); Open Google Scholar
  166. Corrales M, Fenwick M, Haapio H (eds), Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  167. Corrales M, Jurčys P, Kousiouris G, ‘Smart Contracts and Smart Disclosure: Coding a GDPR Compliance Framework’ (2018) SSRN Electronic Journal <www.researchgate.net/publication/323625892_Smart_Contracts_and_Smart_Disclosure_Coding_a_GDPR_Compliance_Framework> accessed 30 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  168. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, ‘CCBE Guidelines on the Use of cloud Computing Services by Lawyers’, (CCBE, 7 September .9.2012) r., <http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Position_papers/EN_ITL_20120907_CCBE_guidelines_on_the_use_of_cloud_computing_services_by_lawyers.pdf.> accessed 21 January 2018; Open Google Scholar
  169. Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (‘CEPEJ’), ‘European judicial systems – Efficiency and quality of justice’ (CEPEJ, 2016); Open Google Scholar
  170. Crowd Research Partners and Cybersecurity Insiders, 'Insider Threat Report 2018' (Crowd Research Partners, 2018) <https://www.veriato.com/resources/whitepapers/insider-threat-report-2018> accessed 17 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  171. Cui Y, Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Modernization (Springer, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  172. Custers B and Vergouw B, ′Promising policing technologies: Experiences, obstacles and police needs regarding law enforcement technologies′ (2015) 31 Computer Law & Security Review; Open Google Scholar
  173. Cyrul W, ‘Tekst jednolity aktu normatywnego w formacie elektronicznym. W kierunku automatyzacji procesu ujednolicania tekstów prawnych’ in Marzena Laskowska (ed) ‘Znaczenie wyroków Trybunału Konstytucyjnego dla tekstu jednolitego ustawy’ (Wydawnictwo Sejmowe 2017); Open Google Scholar
  174. Cyrul W and Pełech–Pilichowski T, ‘Legislating in Hypertext’, (2020) 118 OSAP 27; Open Google Scholar
  175. Cyrul Wand and Duda J, Opiła J and Pełech-Pilichowski T, Informatyzacja tekstu prawa. Perspektywy zastosowania języków znacznikowych (Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014); Open Google Scholar
  176. Czepita S, ‘On the Concept of a Conventional Act and its Varieties‘ (2017) Year LXXIX No. 1 Legal, Economic and Sociological Movement 85; Open Google Scholar
  177. D’Amato A, ‘Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?’(1997) 11 Georgia Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  178. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe - 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Open Google Scholar
  179. Dale R, ‘Law and Word Order: NLP in Legal Tech’ (2019) 25(1) Natural Language Engineering; Open Google Scholar
  180. Dale R, ‘Law and Word Order: NLP in Legal Tech’ (Towards Data Science, 15 December 2018) <www.towardsdatascience.com/law-and-word-order-nlp-in-legal-tech-bd14257ebd06> accessed 4 January 2020; Open Google Scholar
  181. DalleMulle L and Devenport T H, ‘What’s Your Data Strategy? The key is to balance offense and defense’, < https://www.hbr.org/2017/05/whats-your-data-strategy> accesed 18 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  182. Daniels J and Rissland E, ′Integrating IR and CBR to locate relevant texts and passages′ (Database and Expert Systems Applications, 8th International Conference, Proceedings, DEXA'97, Toulouse, 1-2 September 1997); Open Google Scholar
  183. Davidson S, De Filippi P and Potts J, ‘Disrupting Governance: The New Institutional Economics of Distributed Ledger Technology’ (2016) <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2811995> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  184. Davis A E, ‘The Future of Law Firms (and Lawyers) in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ (American Bar Association , 2 October 2020) <www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/professional_lawyer/27/1/the-future-law-firms-and-lawyers-the-age-artificial-intelligence/?q=&wt=json&start=0> accessed 30 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  185. Davis A E, ‘The Future of Law Firms (and Lawyers) in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ (American Bar Association, 2 October 2020) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340322409_The_Future_of_Law_Firms_and_Lawyers_in_the_Age_of_Artificial_Intelligence> accessed 4 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  186. Daylami N, ‘The origin and Construct of Cloud Computing’, (2015) 9, 2 International Journal of the Academic Business World; Open Google Scholar
  187. de Caria R, ‘A Digital Revolution in International Trade? The International Legal Framework for Blockchain Technologies, Virtual Currencies and Smart Contracts: Challenges and Opportunities’ (Modernizing International Trade Law to Support Innovation and Sustainable Development Proceedings of the Congress of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, July 2017) <https://aperto.unito.it/retrieve/handle/2318/1632525/464608/R.%20de%20Caria%2c%20A%20Digital%20Revolution%20%282017%29.pdf> accessed 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  188. de Caria R, ‘Definitions of Smart Contracts: Between Law and Code’ in Larry A. DiMatteo, Michel Cannarsa, and Cristina Poncibò (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (Cambridge University Press 2019); Open Google Scholar
  189. de Maat E, Winkels R and van Engers T, ‘Automated Detection of Reference Structures in Law’ in Tom M. van Engers (ed) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (IOS Press 2006). Open Google Scholar
  190. Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0. Core architecture, data model, and representations’ (W3C, 3 August 2021) <https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/> accessed 3 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  191. Deflem M and Chicoine S, ′History of Technology in Policing′ in Gerben Bruinsma and David Weisburd (eds), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  192. Del Castillo M, Blockchain 50 2021, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2021/02/02/blockchain-50/?sh=207076dc231c> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  193. Del Castillo M, Forbes Blockchain 50 Of 2021: Cashing In On Bitcoin Mania <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2021/02/02/forbes-blockchain-50-corporate-america-cashes-in-on-bitcoin-mania/?sh=1bc729216e01> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  194. Deloitte Center for Government Insights, ‘Future of Regulation. Case studies.’ (Deloitte Center for Government Insights, 2018) <https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/public-sector/us-fed-future-of-regulation.pdf> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  195. Deloitte Legal, ‘What’s your problem? Legal Technology’ (2018) Legal Management Consulting; Open Google Scholar
  196. Denham H, De Vynck G and Lerman R, ‘What is an NFT, and how did an artist called Beeple sell one for $69 million at Christie’s?’ The Washington Post (Washington D.C., 12 March 2021) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/12/nft-beeple-christies-blockchain/> accessed 15 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  197. Departament Oceny Skutków Regulacji, ‘Ocena wpływu w rządowym procesie legislacyjnym.’ (Gov.pl, 13 November 2020) <https://www.gov.pl/web/premier/ocena-wplywu-w-rzadowym-procesie-legislacyjnym> accessed 18 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  198. Dertouzos J N, Pace N M and Anderson R H, ‘The Legal and Economic Implications of Electronic Discovery’ 2008 Institute for Civil Justice; Open Google Scholar
  199. Di Modica G, Di Stefano A, Morana G, Tomarchio O, ‘On the Cost of the Management of user Applications in a Multicloud Environment’ (7th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Istanbul, 2019); Open Google Scholar
  200. Diaz v. Lobel's of New York LLC 16-CV-6349 (NY 2019); Open Google Scholar
  201. Dickert T, ‘Modernisierung des Zivilprozesses Diskussionspapier’ (justiz.bayern.de) <https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/images/behoerden-und-gerichte/oberlandesgerichte/nuernberg/diskussionspapier_ag_modernisierung.pdf> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  202. Die Bundesregierung, ‘Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) ist ein Schlüssel zur Welt von morgen.’ (Die Bundesregierung), <www.ki-strategie-deutschland.de.>accessed 26 Fabruary 2021; Open Google Scholar
  203. Dignum V, Responsible Artificial Intelligence, How to Develop and Use., AI in a Responsible Way (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  204. Dimitropoulos G,‘The Law of Blockchain‘ (2020) 1117 Washington Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  205. Diver L, ‘Digisprudence: the design of legitimate code.’ (LawArXiv Papers, 14 July 2020) <https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/nechu> accessed 18 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  206. Dobjani E T, ‘Length of proceedings as standard of due process of law in the practise of the Constitutional Court of Albania’ (2016) 13 Academicus. International Scientific Journal; Open Google Scholar
  207. Domash J, ‘AI and its Impact on the Future of Regulatory Compliance’ (A-Team Insight, 9 September 2020) <www.a-teaminsight.com/ai-and-its-impact-on-the-future-of-regulatory-compliance/?brand=ati> accessed 30 September 2020; Open Google Scholar
  208. Domingos P, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Brillance Audio 2017); Open Google Scholar
  209. Duca L D, ‘Facilitating expansion of Cross-Border E-Commerce- Developing a Global Online Dispute Resolution System’ (2012) 1, 1 Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs; Open Google Scholar
  210. Dunbar K, ‘Problem Solving’’ in William Bechtel and George Graham (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Science (Blackwell Publishers 1999); Open Google Scholar
  211. Dybała G and Szpyt K, ’Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza za sztuczną inteligencję’ (2021) 5 Gazeta Ubezpieczeniowa; Open Google Scholar
  212. Dyduch X, ‘Zawód adwokata (abogado) w Hiszpanii’ w Michał. Masior (ed) Analiza prawno-porównawcza ustroju korporacyjnego wolnych zawodów prawniczych oraz rynku usług prawniczych w wybranych państwach, w kontekście regulacji i rynku w Polsce z uwzględnieniem dostępności obywateli do tych usług, (Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości 2018) <https://iws.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IWS-Masior-M.-i-inni-Wolne-zawody-prawnicze.pdf> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  213. Dymiński M, Ferenc D, ‘GDPR w łańcuchu bloków’ (2020) 6 Przegląd Prawa Publicznego; Open Google Scholar
  214. Dymitruk M, ‘Sztuczna inteligencja w wymiarze sprawiedliwości?’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  215. Dymitruk M, ′Need for explainable artificial intelligence in automated judicial proceedings′ (Doctoral Consortium at 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Montreal 17 – 21 June 2019); Open Google Scholar
  216. Earsl A R,‘Multi-cloud strategy’, <https://<searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/definition/multi-cloud-strategy> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  217. EBA, ‘Report with advice for the European Commission on crypto-assets’ (2019) <https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/documents/10180/2545547/67493daa-85a8-4429-aa91-e9a5ed880684/EBA%20Report%20on%20crypto%20assets.pdf> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  218. Ebers M, ‘Legal Tech and EU Consumer Law’ in: Larry A. DiMatteo, André Janssen, Pietro Ortolani, M. Canarsa, M. Durovic, F. de Elizalde, André Janssen, Pietro Ortolani, Francisco de Elizalde, Francisco de Elizalde, Michel Cannarsa, Mateja Durovic (eds), Lawyering in the Digital Age, (Cambridge University Press 2021); Open Google Scholar
  219. Ebers M, ‘Regulating AI and Robotics: Ethical and Legal Challenges’ in Martin Ebers and Susana Navas (eds), Algorithms and Law (Cambridge University Press 2020); Open Google Scholar
  220. Ebers M, LegalTech and EU Consumer Law (Cambridge 2021); Open Google Scholar
  221. Ebers M and Navas S, Algorithms and law (UCL 2020); Open Google Scholar
  222. Electronic Transactions Act <https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/ETA2010#P1I> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  223. Endicott T, Vagueness in Law (Oxford University Press 2000); Open Google Scholar
  224. Engstron D F, ‘Post-COVID courts’ (2020) 68 UCLA Law Review Discourse; Open Google Scholar
  225. Escajeda H G, ‘The Vitruvian Lawyer: How to Thrive in an Era of AI and Quantum Technologies’ (2020) XXIX Kansas J. of Law & Pub. Pol'y <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3534683>, accessed: 14 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  226. ETSI, ‘Generic Framework for Multi-Domain Federated ETSI GANA Knowledge Planes (KPs) for End-to-End Autonomic (Closed-Loop) Security Management & Control for 5G Slices, Networks/Services’ (2020) 6 White Paper; Open Google Scholar
  227. ETSI-GS-AFI-001, ‘Autonomic network engineering for the self-managing Future Internet (AFI); ScenariosUse Cases and Requirements for Autonomic/Self-Managing Future Internet’ (ETSI Group Specification 2011); Open Google Scholar
  228. ETSI-GS-AFI-002, ‘Autonomic network engineering for the self-managing Future Internet (AFI); Generic Autonomic Network Architecture (An Architectural Reference Model for Autonomic Networking, Cognitive Networking and Self-Management)’ (ETSI Group Specification 2013); Open Google Scholar
  229. European Commision, ‘Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field. Final report” (Publication Office European Union 2020); Open Google Scholar
  230. European Commission, ‘OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE STRATEGY 2020 – 2023 Think Open’ (Communication to the Commission, 21 November 2020) <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/en_ec_open_source_strategy_2020-2023.pdf> accessed 12 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  231. European Commission, ‘Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field – Final Report’ (2020) 120, <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fb8e194-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en> accessed 25 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  232. European Commission, White Paper On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust, Brussels, COM(2020) 65 final <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  233. European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. FinTech Action plan: For a more competitive and innovative European financial sector’ (eur-lex.europa.eu, 2018); Open Google Scholar
  234. European Parliamentary Research Service, ‘Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation‘, PE 634.445 (2019) 4, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/634445/EPRS_STU(2019)634445_EN.pdf> accessed 10 October 2020; Open Google Scholar
  235. European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Impact on Fundamental Rights, PE 656.295, 2020, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/656295/IPOL_STU(>(2020)656295_EN.pdf> accessed 8 February 2021. Open Google Scholar
  236. Evrotrust, ‘Sending and receiving courts' decisions is already possible through the smartphone’ (www.evrotrust.com, 9 February 2021) <https://www.evrotrust.com/landing/en/a/sending-and-receiving-courts-decisions-is-already-possible-through-the-smartphone> access 19 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  237. Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies – New Technologies Formation, ‘Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Other Emerging Digital Technologies’ (European Commission 2019); Open Google Scholar
  238. Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies New Technologies Formation, Liability for Artificial Intelligence and other emerging digital technologies, ‘Report’ (European Union 2019); Open Google Scholar
  239. Faccioli M in: Alessio Zaccaria, Martin Schmidt-Kessel, Reiner Schulze and Alberto M Gambino (eds) EU eIDAS Regulation. Commentary (Beck/Hart 2020); Open Google Scholar
  240. Faction, ‘What is Multi-Cloud? Everything You Need to Know’, <https://www.factioninc.com/blog/what-is-multi-cloud/> accessed 28 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  241. Falkon S, ‘The Story of the DAO — Its History and Consequences’ (Medium, 24 December 2017) <https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-the-dao-its-history-and-consequences-71e6a8a551ee> accessed 19 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  242. Farzindar A and Lapalme G, ‘Machine Translation of Legal Information and Its Evaluation’ in Nathalie Japkowicz and Yong Gao (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Springer 2009). Open Google Scholar
  243. Fédération Suisse des Avocats, ‘Indications et recommandations de la FSA pour la sous-traitanceinformatique et l’utilisation de services cloud’ <https://www.sav-fsa.ch/fr/documents/dynamiccontent/190408-sav-guidelines-outsourcing_f-(4).pdf> accessed 9 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  244. Fenwick M, Kaal W A and Vermeulen E P M, ‘Legal Education in a Digital Age. Why Coding Matters for the Lawyer of the Future’ in Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci, Nikolaus Forgó, Toshiyuki Kono, Shinto Teramoto and Erik P. M. Vermeulen (eds) Legal Tech and the New Sharing Economy (Springer, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  245. Ferguson A, ′Predictive Policing′ (2017) 94 Washington University Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  246. Ferrari F, ‘Il processo civile telematico’ in Lotario Dittrich (ed) Diritto Processuale Civile (Utet Giuridica, 2019); Open Google Scholar
  247. Ferrer A J, García Pérez D, Sosa González R, ‘Multi-Cloud Platform-as-a-Service Model’ (2016) 97 Functionalities and Approaches Procedia Computer Science; Open Google Scholar
  248. Feteris E, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  249. Financial Conduct Authority, ‘Guidance on Cryptoassets Feedback and Final Guidance to CP 19/3’ (2019) <https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps19-22.⁠p⁠d⁠f> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  250. Finck M, ‘Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation, Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law? ’, (2019) Study. European Parliament; Open Google Scholar
  251. Finck M, ‘Smart Contracts as a Form of Solely Automated Processing under the GDPR’ (2019) 9(2) International Data Privacy Law; Open Google Scholar
  252. Finck M, Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe (CUP 2018); Open Google Scholar
  253. Finck M, and Moscon V, ‘Copyright Law on Blockchains: Between New Forms of Rights Administration and Digital Rights Management 2.0.’ (2019) 50 IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law; Open Google Scholar
  254. FINMA, ‘Guidelines for enquiries regarding the regulatory framework for initial coin offerings (ICOs)’ (2018) <https://www.finma.ch/en/~/media/finma/dokumente/dokumentencenter/myfinma/1bewilligung/fintech/wegleitung-ico.pdf?la=en⁠⁠> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  255. Finocchiaro G, ‘Intelligenza artificiale e protezione dei dati personali’ (2019) Giursprudenza Italiana. Open Google Scholar
  256. Finocchiaro G, ‘Intelligenza artificiale e responsabilità’ (2020) 2 Contr. impr.; Open Google Scholar
  257. Fitzgibbons L, ‘Data in use. Definition’, <https://www.whatis.techtarget.com/definition/data-in-use>, accessed 15 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  258. Flasiński M, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (Springer International Publishing 2016); Open Google Scholar
  259. Flood J and Robb L, ‘Professions and Expertise: How Machine Learning and Blockchain are Redesigning the Landscape of Professional Knowledge and Organisation’ (2018) 18-20 Griffith University Law School Research Paper <https://<ssrn.com/abstract=3228950> accessed 19 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  260. Florida v Espinoza, Case No F14-2923 (Fla 11th Cir Ct) <https://www.morrisoncohen.com/siteFiles/files/2014_02_06%20-%20Florida%20v_%20Espinoza.pdf> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  261. Florida v. Espinoza, Case No. 3D16-1860; Open Google Scholar
  262. Ford M, Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it (Packt Publishing, November 2018); Open Google Scholar
  263. Francesconi E, ‘A description logic framework for advanced accessing and reasoning over normative provision’ (2014) 22(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  264. Fraser V and Roberge J-F, ’Legal Design Lawyering: Rebooting Legal Business Model with Design Thinking’ (2016) 16 Prepperdine Dispute Resoluton Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  265. Freeman K, ‘Algorithmic injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court failed to protect due process rights in State v. Loomis’ (2016) 5 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology; Open Google Scholar
  266. Frey C B, Osborne M A, ‘The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?’ <oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/the-future-of-employment/>, accessed: 13 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  267. Frické M H, ‘Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) Pyramid, Framework, Continuum’, in Laurie A. Schintler and Connie L. McNeely (eds) Encyclopedia of Big Data (Springer 2018) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32001-4_331-1> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  268. Fundacja LegalTech Polska, ‘Diagnoza potrzeb prawników w zakresie wykorzystywania narzędzi informatycznych w usługach prawniczych’ (Politechnika Warszawska, 2018) <https://legaltechpolska.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018.06.25_Raport_LegalTech_ost.pdf> accessed 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  269. Furlong J, ‘The evolution of the legal services market’, <law21.ca/2012/11/the-evolution-of-the-legal-services-market-stage-1/>, accessed: 20 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  270. Gacyk M, Zabawy w Boga. Ludzie o magnetycznych palcach (Agora 2020) 1901; Open Google Scholar
  271. Gajewski M, ‘To były czasy. Kiedy po raz pierwszy uruchomiłem system z graficznym interfejsem i nie rozumiałem, co widzę‘ (Spider’s Web, 7 December 2018) <www.spidersweb.pl/2018/12/microsoft-windows-3-1.html> accessed 20 May 2020; Open Google Scholar
  272. Gamito M C and Ebers M, ‘Algorithmic Governance and Governance of Algorithms: An Introduction’ in Martin Ebers and Marta Cantero Gamito (eds), Algorithmic Governance and Governance of Algorithms: Legal and Ethical Challenges (Springer 2021); Open Google Scholar
  273. Garapon A, ‘Les enjeux de la justice prédictive’ (2017) 1-2 La Semaine juridique; Open Google Scholar
  274. Gatteschi V, Lamberti F and Demartini C, ‘Technology of Smart Contracts’ in Larry DiMatteo, Michel Cannarsa, Cristina Poncibò (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (CUP 2019) <doi:10.1017/9781108592239.003> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  275. Gerard D, ‘The KodakCoin ICO failed, and now everyone wants their money’ (David Gerard, 10 December 2018) <https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/12/10/the-kodakcoin-ico-failed-and-now-everyone-wants-their-money/> accessed 6 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  276. Gerards J and Xenidis R, ‘Algorithmic discrimination in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for gender equality and non-discrimination law’ (European Commission 2020) < https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/082f1dbc-821d-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1> access 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  277. Gesetz zur Einführung der elektronischen Akte in der Justiz und zur weiteren Förderung des elektronischen Rechtsverkehrs dated 5. 7. 2017, Bundesgesetzblatt I 2017, 2208; Open Google Scholar
  278. Giaccaglia M, ‘Considerazioni su blockchain e smart contracts (oltre le criptovalute)’ (2019) 3 Contr. impr.; Open Google Scholar
  279. Gill K S, ‘Data to Decision and Judgment Making – a Question of Wisdom’ (2018) 30 IFAC Papers On Line; Open Google Scholar
  280. Girasa R, Artificial Intelligence as a Disruptive Technology. Economic Transformation and Government Regulation (Palgrave Macmillan 2020); Open Google Scholar
  281. Gitti G and Maugeri M, ‘Blockchain-Based Financial Services and Virtual Currencies in Italy’ in EuCML, 2020, 43; for further information, see Technical Committees ISO TC 307 available at <https://www.iso.org/committee/6266604.html> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  282. Gołaczyński J (eds), Informatyzacja postępowania sądowego w prawie polskim i wybranych państw (C. H. Beck 2009); Open Google Scholar
  283. Gołaczyński J, ‘e-Sąd przyszłości‘ (2019) 2 Monitor Prawniczy; Open Google Scholar
  284. Gomez v. General Nutrition Corp. 323 F Supp 3d 1368 (FL 2018); Open Google Scholar
  285. González-Espejo M-J and Pavón J (eds), An Introductory Guide to Artificial Intelligence for Legal Professionals (Kluwer Law International 2020); Open Google Scholar
  286. Goodenough O R, ‘Computational Jurisprudence 3.0’ (SLS Blog, 5 February 2015) <https://law.stanford.edu/2015/02/05/computational-jurisprudence-3-0/> accessed 19 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  287. Goodenough O R, ‘Legal Technology 3.0’ (HuffPost, 2 April 2015) <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-technology-30_b_6603658?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kZS53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJmQ5R47vQkZD-CLSEI62GMZFfamcZbEroAVqRj0BgQ3GNQ-M7_Mp42oSaiMJThfkfRJZ2XRPcDqKQplfWZyMly0joNI6cn_4BEIooGzWowCm_XIpcCaJidFyB_gju_bruNDzgN9wcy-tWt9MbzUWKIDaN8n4FSY6sEDJ5t-RSeB> accessed 19 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  288. Goodenough O R, ‘Getting to Computational Jurisprudence 3.0’, [in:] Oliver Goodenough, Amedeo Santosuosso and Marta Tomasi (eds), ‘The Challenge of Innovation in Law: The Impact of Technology and Science on Legal Studies and Practice’ (Pavia University PressItaly 2015); Open Google Scholar
  289. Goodman A, ‘Predictive Coding: A Better Way to Deal with Electronically Stored Information’ (2016) 43(1) Litigation; Open Google Scholar
  290. Gordon T F, Prakken H, Walton D, ‘The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof’ (2007) 171(10-15) Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar
  291. Gordon T G, ’20 Years of ICAIL – Reflections on the field of AI and Law’ tfgordon.de 2007 <http://www.tfgordon.de/publications/> access 10 May 2021; Open Google Scholar
  292. Górska M A and Marcinowska L, ’Czy blockchain namiesza w umowach dotyczących własności intelektualnej?’, <https://newtech.law/pl/blockchain-namiesza-umowach-dotyczacych-wlasnosci-intelektualnej/> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  293. Gottschalk v Benson (1972) 409 U.S. 63; Open Google Scholar
  294. Goździaszek Ł (ed), Identyfikacja elektroniczna i usługi zaufania w odniesieniu do transakcji elektronicznych na rynku wewnętrznym Unii Europejskiej. Komentarz (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  295. Grabmair M, Modeling Purposive Legal Argumentation and Case Outcome Prediction Using Argument Schemes in the Value Judgment Formalism (University of Pittsburgh 2016) <http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/27608/, 2016> accessed 17 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  296. Grabowski M and Zając A, ‘Dane, informacje, wiedza – próba definicji’ (2009) 798 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie; Open Google Scholar
  297. Grant T D and Wischik D, On the path to AI. Law’s prophecies and the conceptual foundations of the machine learning age ( Palgrave Macmillan 2020); Open Google Scholar
  298. Greenberg A, ‘A Hacker Tried to Poison a Florida City's Water Supply, Officials Say’ (Wired.com, 2 August 2021) <www.wired.com/story/oldsmar-florida-water-utility-hack> accessed 29 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  299. Grin O S, Grin E S and Solovyov A V, ‘The Legal Design of the Smart Contract: The Legal Nature and Scope of Application’ (2019) 8 Lex Russia; Open Google Scholar
  300. Grisham J, A Time to Kill (Delta 2004) 369.. Open Google Scholar
  301. Grosman M R, Cormack G V, ‘Inconsistent Responsiveness Determination in Document Review: Difference of Opinion or Human Error’ (2012) 32 Pace L. Rev.; Open Google Scholar
  302. Grossman M R and Cormack G V, ′Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review′ (2010) 17 , Rich. JL & Tech.; Open Google Scholar
  303. Grupp M, ‘Legal tech – Impulse fur Streitbeilegung und Rechtsdienstleistung’ (2014) 8-9 Anwaltsblatt <https://www.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/bsabprod.psml?doc.id=jzs-AnwBl2014080019-000_660&st=zs&showdoccase=1&paramfromHL=true> accessed 18 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  304. Grzybowska N, ‘Jest uzasadnienie wyroku ws. Amber Gold. Liczy 9345 stron I zajmie około 47 tomów akt sprawy’ (gdansk.naszemiasto.pl, 29 July 2020) <https://gdansk.naszemiasto.pl/jest-uzasadnienie-wyroku-ws-amber-gold-liczy-9345-stron-i/ar/c1-7827784> accessed 7April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  305. Guillaume F, ‘Aspects of private international law related to blockchain transactions’ in Daniel Kraus, Thierry Obrist and Olivier Hari (eds), Blockchains, Smart Contracts, Decentralised Autonomous Organisations and the Law (Edward Elgar 2019); Open Google Scholar
  306. Gupta S, ‘Sentiment Analysis: Concept, Analysis and Applications’ (January 2018) https://<towardsdatascience.com/sentiment-analysis-concept-analysis-and-applications-6c94d6f58c17> accessed 12 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  307. Gürcan B, ‘Jurisdiction on Blockchain’ (2020) ICBEMM-ICISSS 14; Open Google Scholar
  308. Gürkaynak G, Yılmaz I, Yeşilaltayy B and Bengi B, ‘Intellectual Property Law and Practice in the Blockchain Realm’ (2018) 34 Computer Law & Security Review; Open Google Scholar
  309. Gyuranecz F Z, Krausz B and Papp D, ‘The AI is Now in Session. The Impact of Digitalization on Courts’ (2019); Open Google Scholar
  310. Haapio H and Barton T D, ‘Business-Friendly Contracting: How Simplification and Visualization Can Help Bring It to Practice’ in Kai Jacob, Dierk Schindler and Roger Strathausen (eds), Liquid Legal (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  311. Hacker P, Krestel R, Grundmann S, Naumann F, ‘Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges’ (2020) 28 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  312. Hacker P, ‘Towards a Flexible Framework for Algorithmic Fairness’, in: Ralf H. Reussner, Anne Koziolek and Robert Heinrich (eds) 50. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik, INFORMATIK 2020 – Back to the Future (Karlsruhe 2020); Open Google Scholar
  313. Hadj-Mabrouk H, ‘Contribution of Artificial Intelligence to Risk Assessment of Railway Accidents‘ (2019) 5(2) Urban Rail Transit; Open Google Scholar
  314. Hafner C, ‘Representation of knowledge in a legal information retrieval system’ [in:] Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on research and development in information retrieval 1980; Open Google Scholar
  315. Hage J C, Reasoning with Rules. An Essay in Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic (Springer 1997); Open Google Scholar
  316. Hage J C, ‘Formalizing legal coherence’ in Ronald Prescott Loui (ed) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2001 (ACM 2001); Open Google Scholar
  317. Hage J C, Brożek B and Vincent N (eds.), Law and Mind. A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences (Cambridge University Press 2021); Open Google Scholar
  318. Halsey M and de Van-Palumbo M, ‘Courts as empathic spaces: reflections on the Melbourne neighbourhood justice centre’ (2018) 2 Grifith Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  319. Hangzhou Huatai Media Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right of Dissemination over Internet (The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, 4 April 2019) <http://english.court.gov.cn/2019-12/04/content_37527759.htm> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  320. Harrington W G, ‘A Brief History of Computer-Assisted Legal Research’ (1984) 77, 3 Law. Libr. J.; Open Google Scholar
  321. Hartung M, Bues M-M, Halbleib G, Legal Tech. Die Digitalisierung des Rechtsmarkts (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  322. Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halbleib G, Legal Tech: How Technology Is Changing the Legal World (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  323. Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halblieb G, Legal Tech, How Technology is Changing the Legal World (Nomos 2018); Open Google Scholar
  324. Hasal M, Nowaková J, Saghair K H, Abdulla H, Snášel V, ‘Chatbots: Security, privacy, data protection, and social aspects’ <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpe.6426> accessed 25 July 2021; Open Google Scholar
  325. Hassan S and De Filippi P, ‘The Expansion of Algorithmic Governance: From Code is Law to Law is Code’ (2017) 17 Field Actions Science Reports; Open Google Scholar
  326. Hellwig D, Karlic G, Huchzermeier A, Build Your Own Blockchain (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  327. Henderson J and Bench-Capon T, ‘Describing the Development of Case Law’ in Floris Bex (ed) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2019 (ACM 2019); Open Google Scholar
  328. High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, Europe can do better. Report on the best practice for implementing EU legislation in Member States in the least burdensome way (European Commission, 15 November 2011); Open Google Scholar
  329. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, ‘A definition of Al: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines’ (European Commission, April 2019) <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=56341> accessed 11 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  330. Hildebrandt M, ‘The adaptive nature of text-driven law’ (2021) 1(1) Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Research in Computational Law <https://journalcrcl.org/crcl/article/view/2> accessed 26 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  331. HM Land Registry to explore the benefits of blockchain <https://www.gov.uk/government/ news/hm-land-registry-to-explore-the-benefits-of-blockchain> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  332. Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Di Bello M, Boer A, ‘LKIF Core: Principled Ontology Development for the Legal Domain’ (2009) 188 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Open Google Scholar
  333. Holmes O W, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 457 Harvard Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  334. Hondius E, Silva M S, Nicolussi A, Coderch P S, Wendehorst C and Zoll F (eds), Coronavirus and the Law in Europe <https://www.intersentiaonline.com/bundle/coronavirus-and-the-law-in-europe>, accessed 12 August 2021. Open Google Scholar
  335. Hong J, Dreibholz T, JSchenkel J A,Hu J A, ‘An Overwiew of Multi-Cloud Computing’ in Leonard Barolli, Makoto Takizawa, Fatos Xhafa, Tomoya Enokido (eds), Web, Artificial Intelligence and Network Applications. Proceedings of the Workshops of the 33rd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (WAINA-2019); Open Google Scholar
  336. Hongdao Q and others, ‘Legal Technologies in Action: The Future of the Legal Market in Light of Disruptive Innovations’ (2019) Sustainability; Open Google Scholar
  337. Hook A, ‘The Use and Regulation of Technology in the Legal Sector beyond England and Wales, Research Paper for the Legal Services Board’ (Hook Tangaza, 2019) <https://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/International-AH-Report-VfP-4-Jul-2019.pdfhttps://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/International-AH-Report-VfP-4-Jul-2019.pdf> accessed 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  338. Horty J F, ‘Reasoning with dimension and magnitudes’ (2019) 27(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  339. Hosier R, ‘Evolution of the Law Firm: Why Clients Demand that You Embrace New Technology’ (Legal Futures, 28 October 2020) <www.legalfutures.co.uk/features/evolution-of-the-law-firm-why-clients-demand-that-you-embrace-new-technology> accessed 16 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  340. Houben R and Snyers A, ‘Crypto-assets. Key developments, regulatory concerns and responses’ (European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs 2020) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648779/IPOL_STU(2020)648779_EN.pdf> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  341. Houben R and Snyers A, ‘Cryptocurrencies and blockchain. Legal context and implications for financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion’, (European Parliament's Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance 2018), <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  342. Howard L K, ‘Security by Design’ (2019) 12(2) Journal of Physical Security; Open Google Scholar
  343. Howarth D, Law As Engineering: Thinking about What Lawyers Do (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014); Open Google Scholar
  344. Hudobnik M, ′Data protection and the law enforcement directive: a procrustean bed across Europe? ′ (2020) 21 ERA Forum; Open Google Scholar
  345. HYTrust, ’Protecting sensitive data and achieving compliance in a multi-cloud world’, <https://www.hytrust.com/uploads/Compliance-in-a-Multi-Cloud-World_WP.pdf> accessed 11 January 2021); Open Google Scholar
  346. I ACa 504/19, Legalis; Open Google Scholar
  347. Ibáñez L-D, O’Hara K, Simperl H, ‘On Blockchains and the General Data Protection Regulation’, <https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/sites/default/files/research-paper/blockchains-general-data_4.pdf> accessed 9 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  348. ILTA's, ‘2020 Technology Survey’, <https://www.iltanet.org/resources/publications/surveys/2020ts?ssopc=1>, accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  349. Indurkhya N, Damerau F J, Handbook of Natural Language Processing (Chapman & Hall/CRC 2010); Open Google Scholar
  350. Innovative Technology Arrangement and Services Act (ITAS) <https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/592/eng/pdf> access 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  351. Institut Luxembourgeois de la Normalisation, de l‘Accréditation, de la Sécurité et qualité des produits et services, ‘Trust Services Under the eIDAS Regulation’ (Portail-qualite.lu, June 2018), <https://portail-qualite.public.lu/content/dam/qualite/publications/confiance-numerique/trustservices-under-eIDAS.pdf> access 19 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  352. Insurance Information Institute, ’Facts + Statistics: Identity theft and cybercrime’ (iii.org) <www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-identity-theft-and-cybercrime> accessed 29 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  353. International Bar Association, 'LPRU Cybersecurity' (Ibanet.org, 2018) <https://www.ibanet.org/LPRU/Cybersecurity> accessed 17 August 2021 Open Google Scholar
  354. International Software Testing Qualifications Board®, ‘Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus.’ (International Software Testing Qualifications Board, 11 November 2019) <https://www.istqb.org/downloads/send/2-foundation-level-documents/281-istqb-ctfl-syllabus-2018-v3-1.html> accessed 18 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  355. Islam N, Islam Z and Noor N, ′A Survey on Optical Character Recognition System′ (2016) 10 Journal of Information & Communication Technology -JICT <https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05703> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  356. Israni E, ′Algorithmic Due Process: Mistaken Accountability and Attribution in State v. Loomis′ (Jolt Digest, 31 August 2017) <https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/algorithmic-due-process-mistaken-accountability-and-attribution-in-state-v-loomis-1> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  357. ITU-T, ‘Series X: Data Networks and Open System Communications. OSI Networking and System Aspects – Efficiency’ (1998) ITU-T Recommendation X.630; Open Google Scholar
  358. IV Ka 290/18, Legalis; Open Google Scholar
  359. Jakubik M and Świetnicki T, ‘Technologia coraz bardziej obecna w pracy prawników’ <https://<www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/informatyka-w-pracy-prawnikow-eksperci-pisza-o-legal-tech,504169.html> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  360. Janowski J, Informatyka prawa. Zadania i znaczenie w związku z kształtowaniem się elektronicznego obrotu prawnego (Wydawnictwo UMCS 2011) 328 – 340; Open Google Scholar
  361. Janowski J, Informatyka prawnicza (C. H. Beck 2011); Open Google Scholar
  362. Juang B-H and, Rabiner L R, ′Automatic speech recognition – a brief history of the technology development′ (2005) Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta Rutgers University and the University of California. Santa Barbara; Open Google Scholar
  363. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) from 27 November 2019, VIII ZR 285/18, NJW 2020; Open Google Scholar
  364. Kahnemann D, Thinking fast and slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011); Open Google Scholar
  365. Karoussos H F, ‘Law & The Digital Disruption: The Impact of ICT and AI on the Legal Profession’ (2017) American College of Greece Research Paper <www.researchgate.net/publication/321527178_Law_The_Digital_Disruption_The_Impact_of_ICT_and_AI_on_the_Legal_Profession> accessed 25 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  366. Kastrop C, ‘Human Rights in the Era of AI – Europe as International Standard Setter for Artificial Intelligence’ (2021) <https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/human-rights-in-the-era-of-ai> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  367. Katz D M, Bommarito II M J and Blackman J, ‘A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States’(2017) 3 PLOS ONE; Open Google Scholar
  368. Kayser-Bril N, ′At least 11 police forces use face recognition in the EU, AlgorithmWatch reveals′ (Algorithm Watch, 11 December 2019, updated 19 June 2020) <https://algorithmwatch.org/en/story/face-recognition-police-europe/> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  369. Kephart J O and Chess D M, ‘The Vision of Autonomic Computing’ (2003) 36(1) IEEE Computer; Open Google Scholar
  370. Keppens J, ′Explainable Bayesian Network Query Results via Natural Language Generation Systems′ (Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL '19), Montreal, 17 – 21 June 2019); Open Google Scholar
  371. Kerikmae T (ed), Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union. Normative Realities and Trends (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar
  372. Kerikmäe T and others, ‘Legal Technology for Law Firms: Determining Roadmaps for Innovation’ (2018) Croatian International Relations Review; Open Google Scholar
  373. Kerikmäe T and Pärn-Lee E, ‘Legal dilemmas of Estonian artificial intelligence strategy: in between of e-society and global race’ (2020) AI & Society <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01009-8> accessed 7 April 2021. Open Google Scholar
  374. Keyvanpour M R, Javideh Mand , Ebrahimi M R, ′Detecting and investigating crime by means of data mining: a general crime matching framework′ (2011) 3 Procedia Computer Science; Open Google Scholar
  375. Kitchin R, ‘Thinking critically about and researching algorithms’ (2017) 20:1 Information, Communication & Society; Open Google Scholar
  376. Klimas K and Klimas D, `Electronic Communication in European Cross-border Proceedings – Polish Perspective` in Jacek Gołaczyński, Wolfgang Kilian and Tomasz Scheffler (eds) Legal Innovation in Polish Law (C. H. Beck 2019); Open Google Scholar
  377. Klimczuk A, ‘Chmura jak powietrze: cyfrowa transformacja kancelarii prawnej Magnusson’ <https://news.microsoft.com/pl-pl/2016/12/13/chmura-jak-powietrze-cyfrowa-transformacja-kancelarii-prawnej-magnusson/> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  378. Kõlvart M, Poola M, Rull A, ‘Smart Contracts’ in Tanel Kerikmäe, Addi Rull (eds) The Future of Law and eTechnologies (Springer 2016); Open Google Scholar
  379. Kowalski R A., ‘Legislation as Logic Programs’ in Zenon Bankowski and others (eds) Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning (Springer 1995); Open Google Scholar
  380. Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych,`Sądy w trybie online – zdalna praca sądów w wybranych państwach europejskich w czasach pandemii SARS-COV-19` (2020) <https://kirp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/opracowanie-komisji-zagranicznej-krrp.-sady-w-trybie-online..pdf> accessed 13 January 2020; Open Google Scholar
  381. Krasuski A, Status prawny sztucznego agenta, Podstawy prawne zastosowania sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  382. Kubat M, An Introduction to Machine Learning (Springer International Publishing 2017); Open Google Scholar
  383. Kucharska E, ′BriefCam - one system, many possibilities′ (2019) 12, Stołeczny Magazyn Policyjny; Open Google Scholar
  384. Kucharski B, Świadczenie ubezpieczyciela w umowie ubezpieczenia mienia (Wolters Kluwer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  385. Kuijer M, ‘The right to a fair trial and the Council of Europe’s efforts to ensure effective remedies on a domestic level for excessively lengthy proceedings’ (2013) 13 Human Rights Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  386. Kulawiński M, ‘Transhumanizm, cyborgizacja, ulepszanie człowieka’ <researchgate.net/publication/334448348_Transhumanizm_cyborgizacja_ulepszanie_czlowieka> accessed 13 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  387. Kurki V A J, ‘Why Things Can Hold Rights: Reconceptualizing the Legal Person’ in Visa A. J. Kurki, Tomasz Pietrzykowski (eds) Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  388. Layne K, Lee J, `Developing Fully Functional e-Government: A Four Stage Model` (2001) 18 Government Information Quarterly 122; Open Google Scholar
  389. Lazuashvili N, Norta A and Draheim D, ‘Integration of Blockchain Technology into a Land Registration System for Immutable Traceability: A Casestudy of Georgia’ in Claudio Di Ciccio and others (eds) Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central and Eastern Europe Forum (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  390. Leake D B, ‘Case-Based Reasoning,’ in William Bechtel and George Graham (ed), A Companion to Cognitive Science (Blackwell Publishers 1999); Open Google Scholar
  391. Lee J, Khan V M, ‘ ‚Blockchain and Smart Contract for Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading Platform: Legal Obstacles and Regulatory Solutions‘ (2020) 19 UIC REV. INTELL. PROP. L.; Open Google Scholar
  392. Lee K-F, Inteligencja Sztuczna Rewolucja Prawdziwa. Chiny, USA i przyszłość świata (Media Rodzina 2019); Open Google Scholar
  393. Leeb C-M, Digitalisierung, Legal Technology und Innovation (Duncker & Humblot, 2019); Open Google Scholar
  394. Legaltechies, ‘El estado de la Legaltech en… Mèxico’ (legaltechies.ec, 25 November 2020) <https://bit.ly/371wbZk> accessed 10 February 2021. Open Google Scholar
  395. Legg M and Bell F, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession: Becoming The AI-Enhanced Lawyer’ (2019) 38(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 59, <ssrn.com/abstract=3725949> accessed: 19 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  396. Legner Ch and Webernde K, ’Electronic bill presentment and payment’, <https://<www.researchgate.net/publication/221408047_Electronic_Bill_Presentment_and_Payment/link/55746c1f08ae7536374fee56/download> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  397. Legrand J, ′Some guidelines for fuzzy sets application in legal reasoning′ (1999) 7 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  398. Lehmann J and Gangemi A, ‘An ontology of physical causation as a basis for assessing causation in fact and attributing legal responsibility’ (2007) 15(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  399. Lehmann M, ‘Who Owns Bitcoin? Private Law Facing the Blockchain’ (2019) 21 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology <https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&context=mjlst> accessed 15 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  400. Leiser M and Custers B, ′The Law Enforcement Directive: Conceptual Challenges of EU Directive 2016/680′ (2019) 5, European Data Protection Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  401. Leiser M R, ‘Private jurisprudence’ and the right to be forgotten balancing test,’ (2020) 29 Computer Law & Security Review; Open Google Scholar
  402. Lemkowska M, ‘Funkcje ubezpieczeń gospodarczych a zrównoważony rozwój’, (2020) 2 Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe; Open Google Scholar
  403. Lessig L, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1st edn, Basic Books 1999); Open Google Scholar
  404. Lessig L, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Version 2.0 (2nd revised edn, Basic Books 2006); Open Google Scholar
  405. Leszczyński L, ‘O wykładni prawa i jej wymiarze praktycznym. Kontekst sądowego stosowania prawa’ (2020) 2 Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej; Open Google Scholar
  406. Leszczyński L, ‘Wykładnia operatywna (podstawowe właściwości).’ (2009) 6 Państwo i Prawo; Open Google Scholar
  407. Łętowska E, ‘Dekalog dobrego sędziego’(2016) 1 Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa; Open Google Scholar
  408. Letterton R, ‘L’accés numérique au droit’ (2018) 3 Annales des Mines; Open Google Scholar
  409. Licini C, ‘Il notaio dell'era digitale: riflessioni gius-economiche’ (2018) 2 Notariato; Open Google Scholar
  410. Linee Guida sulla formazione, gestione e conservazione dei documenti informatici <https://www.agid.gov.it/it/linee-guida> accessed 25 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  411. Lingwall J and Mogallapu R., ’Should Code Be Law? Smart Contracts, Blockchain, and Boilerplate’ (2019) 88:1 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  412. Lippe P and Katz D M, ‘10 Predictions about how IBM’s Watson will impact the Legal Profession’ (ABA Journal: Legal Rebels, 2 October 2014) <https://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/10_predictions_about_how_ibms_watson_will_impact> accessed 19 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  413. Litwiński P (ed.), Rozporządzenie UE w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych i swobodnym przepływem takich danych. EU Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  414. Liu L, Introduction to the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services (Chapman and Hall/CRC 2019); Open Google Scholar
  415. Lodge M, ‘Software Testing Is Tedious. AI Can Help.’ (Harvard Business Review Home, 22 February 2021) <https://hbr.org/2021/02/software-testing-is-tedious-ai-can-help#> accessed 18 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  416. Loevinger L, ‘Jurimetrics: The Next Step Forward’ (1949) 33, 5 Minn L Rev; Open Google Scholar
  417. Lord N, ‘Data Protection: Data In transit vs. Data At Rest’, <https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/data-protection-data-in-transit-vs-data-at-rest> accessed 13 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  418. Losano M G, Giuscibernetica: Macchine e modelli cibernetici nel diritto (Einaudi 1969); Open Google Scholar
  419. Louis Larret-Chahine, ‘Lille, premier barreau à tester la justice predictive!’ (Predictice Blog, 1- August 2017) <https://blog.predictice.com/lille-est-le-premier-barreau-%C3%A0-tester-la-justice-pr%C3%A9dictive> accessed 31 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  420. Lubasz D in Edyta Bielak-Jomaa and, Dominik. Lubasz (eds) RODO. Ogólne Rozporządzenie o Ochronie Danych. komentarz (Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  421. Łukańko B, ‘Uchybienie przepisom o ochronie danych osobowych jako naruszenie dobra osobistego – analiza na przykładzie orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego’ (2016) 46 UWM, Studia Prawnoustrojowe; Open Google Scholar
  422. Lynch C, Ashley K D, Pinkwart N and Aleven V, ‘Concepts, Structure and Goals: Redefining Ill-Definededness’ (2009) 19 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education; Open Google Scholar
  423. Macdonald C, ‘Pentagon working to develop technology that would let troops control machines with their MINDS’ (Daily Mail 17 July 2018) <dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5963803/Pentagon-working-develop-technology-let-troops-control-machines-MINDS.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490> accessed 18 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  424. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, ’Kriptovaluta, nyereségrészesedési jog: fokozott befektetői kockázatok’ (mnb.hu, 14 February 2020) <https://www.mnb.hu/sajtoszoba/sajtokozlemenyek/2020-evi-sajtokozlemenyek/kriptovaluta-nyeresegreszesedesi-jog-fokozott-befektetoi-kockazatok> accessed 1 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  425. Malinowska K, ’Aspekty prawne ubezpieczenia cyber ryzyk’ (2018) 2 Prawo Asekuracyjne; Open Google Scholar
  426. Mangan D, ‘Lawyers could be the next profession to be replaced by computers’ (CNBC 13 February 2017) <www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/lawyers-could-be-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence.html> accessed 20 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  427. Mapperson J, Ethereum Smart Contracts up 75 % to Almost 2M in March <https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-smart-contracts-up-75-to-almost-2m-in-march> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  428. Marano P and Noussia K. (eds), InsurTech: A Legal and Regulatory View (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar
  429. Marano P and Szostek D, Smart Contract and Insurance (Palgrawe McMillan 2021); Open Google Scholar
  430. Marczak B and others, ‘Hide and seek, Tracking NSO Group’s Pegasus Spyware to Operations in 45 Countries’ (citizenlab.ca, 18 September 2018) <https://citizenlab.ca/2018/09/hide-and-seek-tracking-nso-groups-pegasus-spyware-to-operations-in-45-countries/> accessed 29 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  431. Markowski K, ’Kryptowaluty. Powstanie-typologia-charakterystyka’ (2019) 3 Civitas et Lex; Open Google Scholar
  432. Marrow P, Karol M and Kuyan S, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: The Computer as an Arbitrator. Are We There Yet?’(2020) 4 Dispute Resolution Journal; Open Google Scholar
  433. Martinek J, ‘Lisp – opis, realizacja i zastosowania’ (Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne, Warszawa 1980); Open Google Scholar
  434. Martini M, ‘Fundamentals of a Regulatory System for Algorithm-based Processes’ (2019) <https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/2019/07/19/martini_regulatory_system_algorithm_based_processes.pdf> accessed 18 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  435. Masior M, ‘Wolne zawody prawnicze w Anglii i Walii oraz reforma ich regulacji’ w Michał. Masior (ed) Analiza prawno-porównawcza ustroju korporacyjnego wolnych zawodów prawniczych oraz rynku usług prawniczych w wybranych państwach, w kontekście regulacji i rynku w Polsce z uwzględnieniem dostępności obywateli do tych usług, (Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości 2018) <https://iws.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IWS-Masior-M.-i-inni-Wolne-zawody-prawnicze.pdf> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  436. Masoni R, ‘Diritto processuale civile dell'emergenza epidemiologica (a seguito della conversione in legge del decreto ristori)’, (2021) Giust. civ., available at <https://giustiziacivile.com> accessed 25 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  437. Maxwell D, Speed Ch, Pschetz L, ‘Story Blocks: Reimagining Narrative through the Blockchain.’ (2017) 23 Convergence; Open Google Scholar
  438. Maxwell T and Schafer B, ′Concept and Context in Legal Information Retrieval′ (Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, 8 July 2008); Open Google Scholar
  439. Maxwell T and Schafer B, ′Concept and Context in Legal Information Retrieval′ (Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, 8 July 2008); Open Google Scholar
  440. Mazzarese T, ′Fuzzy Logic and Judicial Decision-Making: A New Perspective on the Alleged Norm-Irrationalism′ (1993) 2 Proceedings of the Computer and Vagueness: Fuzzy Logic and Neural Nets. Informatica e diritto; Open Google Scholar
  441. McCarty L T, and Sridharan N, ‘The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations’ (Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI-81, Vancouver, 24-28 August 1981); Open Google Scholar
  442. McCarty L T, ‘An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber’, in L. Thorne McCarty (ed) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL’95 (ACM 1995); Open Google Scholar
  443. McCarty L T, ‘Some Arguments About Legal Arguments’, in John Zeleznikow, Daniel Hunter, L. Karl Branting (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '97 (ACM 1997); Open Google Scholar
  444. McCarty L T,′Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning′ (1977) 90, 5 Harv. L.aw Rev.; Open Google Scholar
  445. McEwan I, Maszyny takie jak ja, (Albatros 2019); Open Google Scholar
  446. McIntyre H, ‘Spotify Has Acquired Blockchain Startup Mediachain’ <https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2017/04/27/spotify-has-acquired-blockchain-startup-mediachain/?sh=6c9ffaf369ee> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  447. McJohn S and McJohn I, ‘The Commercial Law of Bitcoin and Blockchain Transactions’ (2016) 16-13 Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper; Open Google Scholar
  448. McKamey M, ‘Legal Technology: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of the Law Practice’ (2017) 45 APPEAL 22 Review of Current Law and Law Reform <ssrn.com/abstract=3014408> accessed: 19 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  449. Medvedeva M, ‘Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights’, (2020) 28 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  450. Mehl L, Automation in the legal world (National Physical Laboratory, 1958); Open Google Scholar
  451. Mehl L, Automation in the legal world (National Physical Laboratory 1958); Open Google Scholar
  452. Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, Lerman K and Galstyan A, ′A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning′ (2019) arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635; Open Google Scholar
  453. Meijer A and Wessels M, ′Predictive Policing: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks′ (2019) 42, International Journal of Public Administration; Open Google Scholar
  454. Mell P and Grance T, ‘The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing: Recommendations of National Institute of Standards and Technology’ (2011) No. 800-145 Computer Security Division, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology <csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf> accessed January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  455. Metsker O, Trofimov E, Grechishcheva S, ‘Natural Language Processing of Russian Court Decisions for Digital Indicators Mapping for Oversight Process Control Efficiency: Disobeying a Police Officer Case’ (Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, 5th International Conference, EGOSE 2018, St. Petersburg 2018); Open Google Scholar
  456. Miller E, ‘Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thins So’ (WIRED 3 March 2019) <http://www.wired.com/> accessed 7 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  457. Miller M S, ‘The Future of Law’ CAPLET.COM (August 1997) <www.caplet.com/security/futurelaw> accessed 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  458. Mills M, ’Artificial Intelligence in Law: The State of Play, 2016, Part 3’ <https://www.neotalogic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Artificial-Intelligence-in-Law-The-State-of-Play-2016.pdf> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  459. Mills M, ′Artificial Intelligence in Law: the State of Play 2016′ (Thomson Reuters, 2016) <https://britishlegalitforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Keynote-Mills-AI-in-Law-State-of-Play-2016.pdf> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  460. Minh Dung P, ‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games’ (1995) 77(2) Artificial intelligence; Open Google Scholar
  461. Ministerstwo Cyfryzacji, Grupa robocza ds. rejestrów rozproszonych i blockchain, ‘GDPR a technologia blockchain’, <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj1rtT-scTvAhVmsYsKHcsTAC8QFjAAegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.pl%2Fattachment%2Fd39a05b8-f04c-4e7c-93ac-3b5b9946ed0c&usg=AOvVaw2Ngh2B3Pcf1XAUCdeplnnC9> accessed 19 Ferbruaty 2021; Open Google Scholar
  462. Ministerstwo Gospodarki and Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów, ‘Wytyczne do przeprowadzania oceny wpływu oraz konsultacji publicznych w ramach rządowego procesu legislacyjnego.’ (Rządowe Centrum Legislacji) <http://www1.rcl.gov.pl/?q=book/wytyczne> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  463. Minsky M, ‘A Framework for Representing Knowledge’ in Patrick H. Winston (ed) Psychology of Computer Vision (MIT Press 1975); Open Google Scholar
  464. Mitchell R L, ′Predictive policing gets personal′ (ComputerWorld, 24 October 2013) <https://www.computerworld.com/article/2486424/predictive-policing-gets-personal.html> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  465. Mitnick Security, ‘The weakest link in safety is still man. Kevin Mitnick showed us how to outsmart us’ < Sobczak K, ‘Coraz więcej cyberataków na firmy prawnicze’ <https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/cyberbezpieczenstwo-coraz-wiecej-atakow-na-firmy-prawnicze,505642.html> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  466. Modgil S, Prakken H, The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial, (2014) Argument and Computation 5(1); Open Google Scholar
  467. Modrák V and Šoltysová Z, `Development of an Organizational Maturity Model in Terms of Mass Customization` in Dominik T. Matt, Vladimir Modrák and Helmut Zsifkovits (eds) Industry 4.0 for SMEs (Palgrave Macmillan 2020) 215 <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25425-4_8> accessed 12 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  468. Modrzejewski M, ’Podatkowe aspekty korzystania z oprogramowania komputerowego w modelu SaaS (Software as a Service)’ (2016) 8 Przegląd Podatkowy; Open Google Scholar
  469. Moens M-F, Uyttendaele C and Dumortier J, ‘Information extraction from legal texts: the potential of discourse analysis’ (1999) 51 International Journal of Human-Computer Studies; Open Google Scholar
  470. Moens M-F, Uyttendaele C and Dumortier J, ′Abstracting of legal cases: The SALOMON experience′ (ICAIL’97: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, 30 June – 3 July 1997); Open Google Scholar
  471. Moguillansky M O, Rotolo A, Simari G R, ‘Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation’ (2019) 129 Expert Systems and Applications; Open Google Scholar
  472. Mohun J and Roberts A, ‘Cracking the code. Rulemaking for humans and machines’ (2020) 40 OECD Working Papers on Public Governance <https://doi.org/10.1787/3afe6ba5-en> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  473. Molęda M, ’Cyber is the new black’, (2018) 6 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar
  474. Monash University, ’Deepfakes detect Zoom-bombing culprits’ (monash.edu, 25 January 2021) <www.monash.edu/it/about-us/news-and-events/latest/articles/2021/deepfakes-detect-zoom-bombing-culprits> accessed 29 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  475. Morand A-S, ‘So kollidiert die DSGVO mit der Blockchain’ (Netzwoche, 1 September 2020) <https://www.netzwoche.ch/news/2020-09-01/so-kollidiert-die-dsgvo-mit-der-blockchain/0lt0> accessed 25 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  476. Mougayar W, ‘Tokenomics — A Business Guide to Token Usage, Utility and Value’ (Medium, 10 June 2017) <https://medium.com/@wmougayar/tokenomics-a-business-guide-to-token-usage-utility-and-value-b19242053416> accessed 6 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  477. Mouttotos N, ‘Reform of civil procedure in Cyprus: Delivering justice in a more efficient and timely way’(2020) 2 Common Law World Review; Open Google Scholar
  478. Murphy J P, ′E-Discovery in Criminal Matters - Emerging Trends & the Influence of Civil Litigation Principles′ (2010) 11 Sedona Conference Journal; Open Google Scholar
  479. Myltseva V, ‘The legal nature and principles of the predictive justice’ (2019) 3 Recht der Osteuropäischen Staaten; Open Google Scholar
  480. Myrna G, ‘Juzgado sin papel, un paso más de la justicia electrónica’ (2018) 12, 41 Revista Ius; Open Google Scholar
  481. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, ‘Dokonywanie oceny wpływu w ramach rządowego procesu legislacyjnego.’ (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, 5 March 2018) <https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,16190,vp,18712.pdf> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  482. Nakamoto S, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System ‘ (31 October 2008) <https:// nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/> accessed 1 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  483. Nardi Y, ‘Cloud computing and the use of legal technology in the cloud’ (Legal Insights Europe, 7 August 2020) <https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/legal-uk/2020/08/07/cloud-computing-and-the-use-of-legal-technology-in-the-cloud/> accessed 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  484. Nastri N, ‘Registri sussidiari, Blockchain: #Notaio oltre la lezione di Carnelutti’ (2017) 4 Notariato; Open Google Scholar
  485. Navas S, ‘LegalTech Services and the Digital Content and Digital Services Directive’ <https://www.academia.edu/44791640/LegalTech_Services_and_the_Digital_Content_and_Digital_Services_Directive> accessed 12 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  486. Nemitz P, ‘Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence’ (2018) 2133 Royal Society Publishing; Open Google Scholar
  487. Neves Jr. P C, ‘Judiciário 5.0’ (Blucher, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  488. Newell A and Simon H A, Human Problem Solving (Prentice Hall 1972); Open Google Scholar
  489. Ng A, ‘What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now’ (Harvard Business Review, 9 November 2016) <www.hbr.org/2016/11/what-artificial-intelligence-can-and-cant-do-right-now> accessed 21 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  490. Nissan E, ‘Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement‘ (2017) 32 AI & Society; Open Google Scholar
  491. Nissan E, ′Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement′ (2017) 32 AI & Society; Open Google Scholar
  492. Nissan E, Computer Applications for Handling Legal Evidence, Police Investigation and Case Argumentation (Springer 2012); Open Google Scholar
  493. Nofer M, Gomber P, Hinz O and Schiereck D, ‘Blockchain’ (2017) 59 Business & Information Systems Engineering <doi 10.1007/s12599-017-0467-3> accessed 15 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  494. Nutter P W, 'Machine learning evidence: admissibility and weight.' 21 (2018) U. Pa. J. Const. L.; Open Google Scholar
  495. O’Gorman V, ’Cybercrime during the coronavirus pandemic: what does it mean for the legal industry?’, <https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/in-house/cybercrime-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-what-does-it-mean-for-the-legal-industry> accessed 25 2021; Open Google Scholar
  496. OECD, ‘Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences’ (2020) OECD Public Governance Reviews <https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  497. OECD, Technology and innovation in the insurance sector (2017) <https://www.oecd.org/pensions/Technology-and-innovation-in-the-insurance-sector.pdf> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  498. Ojczyk J, ‘LegalTech to nieunikniona przyszłość prawników’, <https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/legaltech-day-podsumowanie,503668.html> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  499. Omlor S, ‘The CISG and libra: monetary revolution for international commercial transactions?’ (2020) 3(1) Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy; Open Google Scholar
  500. Omni Legal, ‘Artificial Intelligence Won’t Replace Lawyers—It Will Free Them’ (Law Technology Today 27 February 2018); Open Google Scholar
  501. Oñate S and Haissiner M, ‘Tribunales digitales y jueces máquina’ (2020) El mundo del abogado; Open Google Scholar
  502. Opiła J, Pełech-Pilichowski T, ‘Visual Analysis of Similarity and Relationships Between Legal Texts’ (43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology MIPRO, Opatija, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  503. Opiłek P, ’Kryptowaluty jako przedmiot zabezpieczenia i poręczenia majątkowego’ (2017) 6 Prokuratura i Prawo; Open Google Scholar
  504. Oskamp A, Tragter M and Groendijk C, ‘AI and Lain: What about the Future?’ (1995) 3 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  505. O'Sullivan D, 'Hacked Celebrity Law Firm Says It Has Not Worked With Trump' (CNN, 17 May 2020) <https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/17/politics/celebrity-law-firm-hacked-trump/index.html> accessed 17 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  506. Palazzo M, ‘Informatica e diritto. Un dialogo necessario’ in (2019) 5 Notariato; Open Google Scholar
  507. Paliwala A (ed), A history of legal informatics (Series 9 LEFIS, Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza 2010); Open Google Scholar
  508. Palmirani M, ‘Legislative Change Management with Akoma-Ntoso’ in Giovanni Sartor and others (eds) Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Principles, Models, Standards for Document (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  509. Papageorgiou A, Mygiakis A, Loupos K and Krousarlis T, ‘DPKI: A Blockchain-Based Decentralized Public Key Infrastructure System’ (2020 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS) Dublin, June 2020); Open Google Scholar
  510. Parenti R, ‘Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Hubs for FinTech’ (European Parliament Think Tank, 30 September 2020) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652752/IPOL_STU(2020)652752_EN.pdf> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  511. Park J, ‘Your Honor, AI.’ (Harvard International Review, 3 April 2020) <https://hir.harvard.edu/your-honor-ai/> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  512. Partyk A, ‘Legitim 2.0., czyli o robocie przyszłości… rozstrzygającym spory zachowkowe‘ (2019) 2(25) Studia Prawnicze; Open Google Scholar
  513. Paschke A, Digitale Gerichtsöffentlichkeit (Duncker & Humblot, 2018); Open Google Scholar
  514. Pasquale F, ′A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation′ (2019) 87, 3 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.; Open Google Scholar
  515. Pasquale F, ′A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation′ (2019) 87, 1 Geo. Wash. L.aw Rev.; Open Google Scholar
  516. Patrick G and Bana A, ‘Report. Rule of Law Versus Rule of Code: A Blockchain-Driven Legal Word’ (2017) International Bar Association Legal Policy & Research Unit 16; Open Google Scholar
  517. Pavčnik M, ‘Why Discuss Gaps in the Law?’ (1996) 9/1 Ratio Juris; Open Google Scholar
  518. Pecyna M, Behan A, ‘Smart contracts — nowa technologia prawa umów? ’ (2020) 3 Transformacje prawa prywatnego; Open Google Scholar
  519. Peczenik A, On Law and Reason (Springer 2008); Open Google Scholar
  520. Pereira D, ‘How Watson helps lawyers find answers in legal research’, (Medium 5 January 2017), <https://medium.com/@darylp/how-watson-helps-lawyers-find-answers-in-legal-research-672ea028dfb8> accessed 20 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  521. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (University of Notre Dame Press 1971); Open Google Scholar
  522. Perrot P, ‘What about AI in criminal intelligence? From predictive policing to AI perspectives’ (2017) 16 European Police Science and Research Bulletin; Open Google Scholar
  523. Perry W L, McInnis B, . Price C C, Smith S C and Hollywood J S, ′Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations′ (2013) National Institute of Justice, Safety and Justice Program, RAND Corporation research report series <https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR233.html⁠> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  524. Peterson A, ‘NoCode And Lawyers’ (NoCode Journal, 12 May 2020) <https://www.nocodejournal.com/posts/nocode-and-lawyers> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  525. Petzel J, Informatyka prawnicza. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki (LIBER 1999); Open Google Scholar
  526. Petzel J, Systemy wyszukiwania informacji prawnej (Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  527. Philipps L and Sartor G, ′Introduction: from legal theories to neural networks and fuzzy reasoning′ (1999) 7 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  528. Piètre-Cambacédès L and Chaudet C, 'The SEMA Referential Framework: Avoiding Ambiguities In The Terms “Security” And “Safety”' (2010) 3 International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection; Open Google Scholar
  529. Polański P P, (C. H. Beck LegalTech Forum conference, Warszawa, 16-17 June 2021); Open Google Scholar
  530. Polański P P, Customary law of the Internet (1st edn, T.M.C. Asser Press 2007); Open Google Scholar
  531. Polański P P, ‘Zwalczanie bezprawnych treści oraz zapewnienie dostępności cyfrowej z pomocą algorytmów sztucznej inteligencji’, in: Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  532. Polański P P, (ed.), Ustawa o dostępności cyfrowej. Komentarz (1st edn, C.H.Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar
  533. Pollock J L, ‘Defeasible Reasoning’ (1987) 11 Cognitive Science; Open Google Scholar
  534. Poullet Y and Jacquemin H, ‘Blockchain: une révolution pour e droit?’ (2018) 6748 Journal des tribunaux; Open Google Scholar
  535. Prabucki R, ‘About Chinese Courts and Blockchain — A Simple Chain Foundation commentary’ (Medium, 18 June 2020) <https://medium.com/@prabucki.rafael/chinese-justice-and-blockchain-what-can-we-learn-ed4285e1a34d> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  536. Prakken H, ‘An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments’ (2010) 1(2) Argument and Computation; Open Google Scholar
  537. Prakken H, ‘Comparing Alternative Factor- and Precedent-Based Accounts of Precedential Constraint’ in Michal Araszkiewicz and Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel (eds): Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2019: The Thirty-second Annual Conference, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 322 (IOS Press 2019); Open Google Scholar
  538. Prakken H, Sartor G, ‘Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game’ (1998) 6(2-4) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  539. Preukschat A, ‘Understanding the European Self-Sovereign Identity Framework (ESSIF) – Daniël Du Seuil and Carlos Pastor – Webinar 32’ <https://ssimeetup.org/understanding-european-self-sovereign-identity-framework-essif-daniel-du-seuil-carlos-pastor-webinar-32/> accessed 21 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  540. PRISM Litigation Technology, ‘Predictive Coding: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ (Prism Blog, 7 August 2019) <https://prismlit.com/predictive-coding/> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  541. Protalinski E, `Google’s speech recognition technology now has a 4.9% word error rate` <https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/17/googles-speech-recognition-technology-now-has-a-4-9-word-error-rate/> accessed 11 January 2021. Open Google Scholar
  542. Pullan T, ‘Experience: the Critical Commodity in Deal Negotiation + Star-Studded Careers’ (Artificial Lawyer, 12 February 2021) <https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2021/02/12/experience-the-critical-commodity-in-deal-negotiation-star-studded-careers/> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  543. Pyrrho Investments Limited v MWB Property Limited [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch); Open Google Scholar
  544. Raczyńska M, `Modele dojrzałości procesowej organizacji` (2017) XLIV 2 Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Zarządzanie, 61; Open Google Scholar
  545. Ramos A, (coord.), ‘Observatorio: Avances de Justicia Abierta en Línea en México 2020’ (Escuela Libre de Derecho, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  546. Raso F A, Hilligoss H, Krishnamurthy V and Bavitz C, ‘Artificial Intelligence & Human Rights: Opportunities & Risks, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, (Harvard University 2018)’ <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3259344> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  547. Rawhan I and Simari G R (eds), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, (Springer 2009); Open Google Scholar
  548. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Artificial Intelligence, ‘OECD/LEGAL/0449’, <https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449> accessed 8 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  549. Redaktion beck-aktuell ‘EDV-Gerichtstag sieht Fortentwicklung der Justiz-IT als wesentliche Zukunftsfrage’ (beck-aktuell Heute im recht, 20 September 2019) <https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/edv-gerichtstag-sieht-fortentwicklung-der-justiz-it-als-wesentliche-zukunftsfrage> accessed 26 February2020; Open Google Scholar
  550. Regaldo A, ‘Who Coined "Cloud Computing"?’ (MIT Technology Review, 31 October 2011) <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425970/who-coined-cloud-computing>/ accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  551. Reidenberg J, ‘Lex Informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology’ (1998) 76 Texas Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  552. Reiter R, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’ (1980) 13 Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar
  553. Remus D A, ‘The Uncertain Promise of Predictive Coding’ (2014) 99 Iowa Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  554. Ren Y, Tan X, Qin T, Zhao S, Zhao Z and Liu T-Y, ′Almost Unsupervised Text to Speech and Automatic Speech Recognition′ (Volume 97: International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, 9-15 June 2019); Open Google Scholar
  555. Richter M M and Weber R O, Case-Based Reasoning. A Textbook (Springer-Verlag 2013); Open Google Scholar
  556. Rissland E L, Skalak D B, ‘CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture’ (1991) 34(6) International Journal of Man-Machine Studies; Open Google Scholar
  557. Rivera M A, ‘An introduction to Amparo Theory’ (2020) 12, 2 Krytyka Prawa; Open Google Scholar
  558. Rivera M A, ‘Las partes en el juicio de amparo’ in Juan González and others (eds) Teoría y Práctica del Juicio de Amparo, (Flores Editor, 2018); Open Google Scholar
  559. ROFIEG, ‘30 Recommendations on regulation, innovation and finance. Final Report to the European Commission’ (13 December 2019) 27 ff <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/191113-report-expert-group-regulatory-obstacles-financial-innovation_en.pdf> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  560. Roitblat H L, Kershaw A and, Oot P, ′Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review′ (2010) 61 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology; Open Google Scholar
  561. Rojek-Socha P, ‘Rusza elektroniczny sąd polubowny, skorzysta z profile zaufanego’, (Prawo.pl, of 24 April 2019), <https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/elektroniczny-sad-polubowny-ultima-ratio-rusza-przy,402433.html> accessed (11 March.03.2021); Open Google Scholar
  562. Rościszewski A, ‘Odpowiedzialność cywilna adwokatów’ (2014) 10 Palestra; Open Google Scholar
  563. Roslin R, ‘Legal Technology and In-house Counsels Today’ (Staranise, 1 June 2020) accessed 30 September 2020; Open Google Scholar
  564. Ross O, Jensen J R and Asheim T, ‘Assets under Tokenization’ (2019) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3488344> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  565. Roth N, ‘An Architectural Assessment of Bitcoin: Using the Systems Modeling Language‘ (2015) 44 Procedia Computer Science; Open Google Scholar
  566. Rott-Pietrzyk E, Szostek D, `A New Approach to the Legal Understanding of “Directness” and “Participation” in the Aftermath of COVID-19’ in: Ewoud Hondius, Marta Santos Silva, Andrea Nicolussi, Pablo Salvador Coderch, Christiane Wendehorst, Fryderyk Zoll (eds) Coronavirus and the Law in Europe <https://www.intersentiaonline.com/publication/coronavirus-and-the-law-in-europe/658?version=v-2f6f01ec-324e-637b-c7ca-a6bc0e384e16> accessed 15 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  567. Rowley J, ‘The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy’ (2007) 33(2) Journal of Information Science; Open Google Scholar
  568. Rowley J, ‘The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy‘ (2007) Journal of Information Science <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165551506070706> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  569. Ruffini G, ‘Il Processo Civile di fronte alla svolta telematica’ in (2019) 4-5 Riv. dir. Proc; Open Google Scholar
  570. Russell S and Norvig P, Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach, (3rd ed. Pearson 2016); Open Google Scholar
  571. Russell S J, “Artificial Intelligence. A Binary Approach,” in S. Matthew Liao (ed.), Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press 2020); Open Google Scholar
  572. Sajfert J and Quintel T, ‘Data Protection Directive (EU) 2016/680 for Police and Criminal Justice Authorities’ in Mark Cole and Franziska Boehm (eds) GDPR Commentary (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3285873> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  573. Salen K and Zimmerman E, Rules of play: game design fundamentals (MIT Press 2003); Open Google Scholar
  574. Salomão L F (ed), Tecnologia Aplicada à Gestão Dos Conflitos No Âmbito Do Poder Judiciário Brasileiro (FGV Conhecimento 2020) <https://ciapj.fgv.br/publicacoes> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  575. Salter S, ‘Online dispute resolution and justice system integration: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal’ (2017) 34 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice; Open Google Scholar
  576. Samek W, Wiegand T and Müller K-R, ‘Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models‘ (2017) 1 ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries; Open Google Scholar
  577. Samoili S and others, ‘AI Watch. Defining Artificial Intelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence, EUR 30117 EN, Publications Office of the European Union’ (2020); Open Google Scholar
  578. Samonas S and Coss D, 'The CIA Strikes Back: Redefining, Confidentiality, Integrity And Availability In Security' (2014) 10,3 Journal of Information System Security <http://www.proso.com/dl/Samonas.pdf> accessed 17 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  579. Sartor G, ‘Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality’ (2010) 18(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  580. Sartor G, ‘Legislative Information and the Web’ in Giovanni Sartor and others, (eds) Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Principles, Models, Standards for Document (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  581. Sartor G, Casanovas P, Biasiotti M A and Fernández-Barrera M (eds) Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Theories, Domains, Methodologies (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  582. Sartor G, Legal Reasoning, (Springer 2005); Open Google Scholar
  583. Sartor G, ‘Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories’ (2009) 17(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  584. Šavelka J, Westermann H and others, ‘Lex Rosetta: Transfer of Predictive Models across Languages, Jurisdictions and Legal Domains’ (ICAIL 2021: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, São Paulo, 21-25 June 2021); Open Google Scholar
  585. Sawicki J, ’Ubezpieczenie Business Interruption (BI) jako zabezpieczenie przyszłych dochodów przedsiębiorstwa’ (2008) 7 Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania; Open Google Scholar
  586. Scharf J, Künstliche Intelligenz un Recht. Von den Wissensrepräsentation zur automatisierten Entscheidungsfindung (Weblaw 2015); Open Google Scholar
  587. Scherer M, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?‘ (2019) 36 Journal of International Arbitration; Open Google Scholar
  588. Schmidt A, `Technologie komunikacyjno-informatyczne w sądownictwie w Holandii – aktualna sytuacja` (2006) 16 Prawo mediów elektronicznych; Open Google Scholar
  589. Schwartz J and Pelster B, ’Global Human Capital Trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce’, <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2014/hc-trends-2014-introduction.html/#endnote-sup-10> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  590. Schweighofer E, Legal Knowledge Representation (Kluwer Law International 1999); Open Google Scholar
  591. Sergot M J, Sadri F, Kowalski R A, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P and Cory H T, ‘The British Nationality Act as a logic program’ (1986) 29 Communications of the ACM; Open Google Scholar
  592. Shah R, ′Law Enforcement and Data Privacy - A Forward-Looking Approach′ (2015) 125 Yale Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  593. Shcherbak S, ‘Integrating Computer Science into Legal Discipline: The Rise of Legal Programming.’ (14 September 2014) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2496094> accessed 5 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  594. Shekhar S‘Sarmah, Application of Blockchain in Cloud Computing’ (2019) 8 12 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering; Open Google Scholar
  595. Sheppard B, ‘Incomplete Innovation and the Premature Disruption of Legal Sevices’ (2015) 1797 Michigan State Law Rev; Open Google Scholar
  596. Singh B P and Tripathi A K, ‘Blockchain Technology and Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) 24 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights; Open Google Scholar
  597. Sirena P, ‘I sistemi di ADR nel settore bancario e finanziario’ (2018) 9 Nuova giur. civ. Comm; Open Google Scholar
  598. Siwek M, ‘Prawa i obowiązki sędziego’(2006) 13 Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe; Open Google Scholar
  599. Size R, ‘Taking advantage of advances in technology to enhance the rule of law’ (2017) 91 Australian Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  600. Smetana D, ‘The Future of Legal Technology: 3 Emerging Trends’ (5 August 2020) <https://www.chalkline.tech/blog/future-of-legal-technology-3-trends> accessed 30 September 2020; Open Google Scholar
  601. Smith JC, ′Machine Intelligence and Legal Reasoning′ (1998), 73 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.; Open Google Scholar
  602. Smoloń D, Sokoliński O and Szarek G, ’Polisa od sztucznej inteligencji’, (2018) 10 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar
  603. Songkai X, Yurochkin M and,Sun Y, ′Auditing ML Models for Individual Bias and Unfairness′ (2020) 108 (PMLR 108/2020) Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistic; Open Google Scholar
  604. Sourdin T and Cornes R, ‘Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging’ in Tania Sourdin and Archie Zariski (eds) The Responsive Judge (Springer, 2018); Open Google Scholar
  605. Sourdin T, ‘Judge v. robot? Artificial Intelligence and judicial decision making’(2018) 4 UNSW Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  606. Sowiński R, Majrzak M, ‘Programy do zarządzania kancelarią prawną. Jak wybrać i wdrożyć najlepszy program dla Twojej kancelarii?’ <https://kirp.pl/raport-programy-do-zarzadzania-kancelaria-prawna-juz-dostepny/> accessed 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  607. Special Counsel, ‘What Predictive Coding Court Rulings Can Teach Us’ blog.specialcounsel.com (3 November 2016) <https://blog.specialcounsel.com/ediscovery/what-predictive-coding-court-rulings-can-teach-us> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  608. Speech by Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mariya Gabriel on blockchain applications, Brussels 3 April 2019 <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_19_1973> accessed 2 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  609. Spinosa P L, Giardiello G, Cherubini M, Marchi S, Venturi G, Montemagni S, ‘NLP-based metadata extraction for legal text consolidation’ (Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, Barcelona 2009); Open Google Scholar
  610. Srikanteswara R and others ‘Data security using encryption on multi-cloud’ (2018) 5, 6 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology; Open Google Scholar
  611. Srinivasan S, Cloud Computing Basics (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar
  612. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W. 2d 749, (Wisconsin 2016); Open Google Scholar
  613. STF. First Panel. AI 564.765-RJ, DJ 17/3/2006; Open Google Scholar
  614. Strutin K, ′Databases, E-Discovery and Criminal Law′ (2008) 15 Rich. JL & Tech.; Open Google Scholar
  615. Studnicki F, Łachwa A, Fall J and Stabrawa E, Odesłania w tekstach prawnych. Ku metodom ich zautomatyzowanej interpretacji (ZNUJ 1990); Open Google Scholar
  616. Surden H, ‘Machine Learning and Law’ (2014) 89 Washington Law Review; Open Google Scholar
  617. Susskind R, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University Press 2019); Open Google Scholar
  618. Susskind R, Tomorrow’s Lawyers. An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford University Press 2nd edn, 2017); Open Google Scholar
  619. Susskind R, ′The Latent Damage System: a jurisprudential analysis′ (ICAIL '89: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Lw, Vancouver 1989); Open Google Scholar
  620. Susskind R and Susskind D, The Future of the Professions (Oxford University Press 2015); Open Google Scholar
  621. Susskind R and Susskind D, The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts (Oxford University Press 2015); Open Google Scholar
  622. Swan M, Blockchain - A Blueprint for a New Economy (O‘Reilly 2015); Open Google Scholar
  623. Szabo N, ‘Smart Contracts’, <https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  624. Szalai P,‘Elektronikus kommunikáció a polgári perben‘ in Gergely G. Karácsony (ed) Az elektronikus eljárások joga (Gondolat, 2018) <http://real.mtak.hu/80535/1/e-elj%C3%A1r%C3%A1s-jog_Tank%C3%B6nyv_LO.pdf> accessed 1 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  625. Szewczuk A, ’Business interruption: ewolucja kompleksowego programu ubezpieczeniowego dla sektora małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw’ (2010) 50 “Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług; Open Google Scholar
  626. Szlak G, ‘Online Dispute Resolution in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities’, in Mohamed Abdel Wahab and others (eds) Online dispute resolution: Theory and Practice (Eleven International Publishing, 2012); Open Google Scholar
  627. Szmit M, 'Biegły informatyk w postępowaniu cywilnym' (2010) 121/1078 Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Łódzkiej; Open Google Scholar
  628. Szmit M, 'O standardach informatyki śledczej' (2018) 355 Studia Ekonomiczne; Open Google Scholar
  629. Szostek D, (ed), Bezpieczeństwo danych i IT w kancelarii prawnej radcowskiej/adwokackiej/notarialnej/komorniczej. Czyli jak bezpiecznie przechowywać dane w kancelarii prawnej (Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar
  630. Szostek D, ‘Consequences of applying new technologies to sources of law’ in García G. Javier, Alzina L. Álvaro and Martín R. Gabriel (eds), El derecho público y privado ante las nuevas tecnologías (Dykinson 2020); Open Google Scholar
  631. Szostek D, ‘IBAC (IoT, Blockchain, AI i Cyberbezpieczeństwo) – samoregulacja kodów czy kontrola uprzednia?’ in Kinga. Flaga-Gieruszyńska, Jacek Gołaczyński and Dariusz Szostek (eds), Sztuczna inteligencja, blockchain, cyberbezpieczeństwo oraz dane osobowe. Zagadnienia wybrane (C. H. Beck 2019); Open Google Scholar
  632. Szostek D, ‘Sztuczna inteligencja a kody. Czy rozwiązaniem dla uregulowania sztucznej inteligencji jest smart contract i blockchain?’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C.H.Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  633. Szostek D, Blockchain and the law (1st edn, Nomos 2019); Open Google Scholar
  634. Szostek D, in Dariusz Szostek (ed) Legal tech. Czyli jak bezpiecznie korzystać z narzędzi informatycznych w organizacji, w tym w kancelarii oraz dziale prawnym (C. H. Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar
  635. Tanenbaum A S and Wetherall D J, Computer Networks (Prentice Hall 2011); Open Google Scholar
  636. Tapscott D and Tapscott A, Blockchain revolution. How The Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, And The World (Penguin Random House 2016); Open Google Scholar
  637. Thagard P, Coherence in Thought and Action (The MIT Press 2000); Open Google Scholar
  638. Thakur V, Doja M N, Dwivedi Y K, Ahmad T, Khadanga G, ‘Land records on Blockchain for implementation of Land Titling in India’ (2020) 52 International Journal of Information Management; Open Google Scholar
  639. The European Union Blockchain Observatory & Forum, EU Blockchain Ecosystem Developments, <https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/sites/default/files/reports/EU%20Blockchain%20Ecosystem%20Report_final_0.pdf> accessed 2 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  640. The Geneva Association, ’Ten key questions on Cyber Risk and Cyber Risk Insurance’ <https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public/cyber-risk-10_key_questions.pdf>; Open Google Scholar
  641. The Legal Technologist, ‘An interview with Mariana Hagström – From Managing Partner to Legaltech Founder’ (The Legal Technologist 12 August 2020) <https://www.legaltechnologist.co.uk/an-interview-with-mariana-hagstrom-from-managing-partner-to-legaltech-founder/> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  642. The Service Innovation Lab (LabPlus), ‘Better Rules for Government Discovery Report’ (NZ Digital Government, March 2018) <https://www.digital.govt.nz/dmsdocument/95-better-rules-for-government-discovery-report/html#summary> accessed 31 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  643. Thomson Reuters Legal, ‘How to make the e-discovery process more efficient with predictive coding?’ <https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/how-predictive-coding-makes-e-discovery-more-efficient> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  644. Thordsen T, Murawski M and Bick M, `How to Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation of Digital Maturity Models` in Marié Hattingh, Machdel Matthee, Hanlie Smuts, Ilias Pappas, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Matti Mäntymäki (eds) Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology (Springer 2020) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_30P> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  645. Thornhill J, ‘Is AI finally closing in on human intelligence’ (Financial Times, 12 November 2020) <https://www.<ft.com/content/512cef1d-233b-4dd8-96a4-0af07bb9ff60>, accessed 13 November 2020; Open Google Scholar
  646. Tolan S, Miron M, Gómez E and Castillo C, ′Why Machine Learning May Lead to Unfairness: Evidence from Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice in Catalonia′ (Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL '19), Montreal, 17 – 21 June 2019); Open Google Scholar
  647. Tönnissen S, Beinke J H and Teuteberg F, ‘Understanding Token-based Ecosystems – a Taxonomy of Blockchain-based Business Models of Start-ups’ (2020), 30 Electron Markets <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00396-6> accessed 8 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  648. Toulmin S, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press 2003 (1st ed. 1958); Open Google Scholar
  649. Trautman L J, ‘Is Disruptive Blockchain Technology the Future of Financial Services?’ (2016) 69 The Consumer Finance Law Quarterly Report <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2786186> accessed 15 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  650. Tresise A, Goldenfein J and Hunter D, ‘What Blockchain Can and Can't Do for Copyright’ (2018) 28 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 144 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3227381> accessed 7 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  651. Tribunal de Contas da União, ‘Apêndice 1 -Aplicações Blockchain No Setor Público Do Brasil’, (TCU 2020) <https://portal.tcu.gov.br/levantamento-da-tecnologia-blockchain.htm> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  652. Tribunal de Contas da União, 'Levantamento Da Tecnologia Blockchain' (TCU 2020) <https://portal.tcu.gov.br/levantamento-da-tecnologia-blockchain.htm> accessed 9 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  653. Triumph Controls UK Ltd & anr v Primus International Holding Co & ors [2019] EWHC 565 (TCC); Open Google Scholar
  654. Turner J, ′Managing Digital Discovery In Criminal Cases′ (2019) 109 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; Open Google Scholar
  655. Turner J, Robot Rules. Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  656. Uliasz M in Jacek Gołaczyński and Dariusz Szostek (eds) Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz do ustawy z 4.7.2019 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw (C. H. Beck 2019); Open Google Scholar
  657. Ultima Ratio ‘Sztuczna inteligencja w Ultima Ratio. Czy roboty zastąpią arbitrów?’ (ultimaratio.pl) <https://ultimaratio.pl/sztuczna-inteligencja-w-ultima-ratio-czy-roboty-zastapia-arbitrow> accessed 12 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  658. Uzsoki D, ‘Tokenization of Infrastructure: A blockchain-based solution to financing sustainable infrastructure, (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2019) <doi:10.2307/resrep22004.3> accessed: 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  659. Valles G, ‘Financiamiento Público de los Partidos Políticos en México: tópicos controversiales y propuesta de alternativa tecnológica para su fiscalización’, (2018) 27, 2 Díkaion; Open Google Scholar
  660. Van de Ven S, Hoekstra R, Winkels R, De Maat E and Kollár A ‘MetaVex: Regulation Drafting meets the Semantic Web’ in Pompeu Casanovas and others (eds) Computable Models of the Law (Springer 2008); Open Google Scholar
  661. van der Meulen R, ‘5 Legal Technology Trends Changing In-House Legal Departments’ (Gartner, 9 February 2021) <www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/5-legal-technology-trends-changing-in-house-legal-departments/> accessed 24 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  662. van der Put M, ‘Kan artificiële intelligentie de rechtspraak betoveren’ (2019) 2 Rechtstreeks; Open Google Scholar
  663. van Kralingen R, Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law (Kluwer Law International 1995); Open Google Scholar
  664. Verheij B, ‘Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation’, (2003) 150 (1-2) Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar
  665. Verheij B, ‘Artificial intelligence as law. Presidential address to the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law’ (2020) 28 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  666. Verheij B, ‘DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions’, (2003) 13(3) Journal of Logic and Computation; Open Google Scholar
  667. Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0. Expressing verifiable information on the Web’ (W3C, 19 November 2019) <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/> accessed 21 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  668. Vigliotti M G, Jones H, The Executive Guide to Blockchian (Palgrave Macmillan 2020); Open Google Scholar
  669. Villaronga E F, Kieseberg P and Li T, ‘Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the Right to Be Forgotten’ (2018) 34, 2 Computer Law & Security Review; Open Google Scholar
  670. Virtual Financial Assets Act (VFA) <https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/590/eng/pdf> access 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  671. Vitali F, ‘A Standard-Based Approach for the Management for Legislative Documents’ in Giovanni Sartor and others, (eds) Legislative XML for the Semantic Web. Principles, Models, Standards for Document (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar
  672. Von der Leyen U, Mission letter of President-elect Von der Leyen to Vice-President Dombrovskis (10 September 2019) <https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20143/0/mission-letter-valdis-dombrovskis-2019_en+%281%29.pdf/d3645133-8c2e-7fdd-4367-77059b892232?t=1569412036000&download=true> accessed 15 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  673. Vorhies W, ‘An Argument in Favor of Centaur AI’ <www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/an-argument-in-favor-of-centaur-ai>, accessed: 15 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  674. Waddington M, ‘Machine-consumable legislation: A legislative drafter’s perspective – human v artificial intelligence’ (2019) 2 The Loophole - Journal of Commonwealth Assoc of Legislative Counsel; Open Google Scholar
  675. Wagner J, Legal Tech und Legal Robots. Der Wandel im Rechtswesen durch neue Technologien und Künstliche Intelligenz (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar
  676. Wagner J, Legaltech und Legal Robots. Der Wandel im Rechtswesen durch neue Technologien und Kunstliche Intelligenz, (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar
  677. Walton D, Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law (Springer 2005); Open Google Scholar
  678. Walton D, Reed C and Macagno F, Argumentation Schemes (Cambridge University Press 2008); Open Google Scholar
  679. Walton D, Sartor G and Macagno F, Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and argumentation (Cambridge University Press 2020); Open Google Scholar
  680. Wang Q, Li R, Zhan L, ‘ ‚Blockchain technology in the energy sector: From basic research to real world applications‘ (2021) 39 Computer Science Review; Open Google Scholar
  681. Waszczuk P, ‘Trend Micro: W jaki sposób zapewnić bezpieczeństwo infrastruktury IT w modelu multicloud?’ <https://www.itwiz.pl/trend-micro-jaki-sposob-zapewnic-bezpieczenstwo-infrastruktury-modelu-multicloud/> access 8 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  682. Waterman D A and Peterson M A, ‘Models of Legal Decision Making: Research Design and Methods’ (Rand Corporation, The Institute for Civil Justice 1981); Open Google Scholar
  683. Weather M, ‘Predictive coding: the current landscape’ disputeresolutionblog.practicallaw.com/ (Thomson Reuters 21 July 2016) <http://disputeresolutionblog.practicallaw.com/predictive-coding-the-current-landscape/> accessed 26 February 2021; Open Google Scholar
  684. Weinberger D, `The problem with the data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy` (2010) Harvard Business Review <https://hbr.org/2010/02/data-is-to-info-as-info-is-not> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  685. Weinstein J, Abrams N, Brewer S and Medwed D, Evidence (Foundation Press 2017); Open Google Scholar
  686. Wen T, `How coronavirus has transformed the way we communicate` (BBC, 9 April 2020) <https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200408-coronavirus-how-lockdown-helps-those-who-fear-the-phone> accessed 15 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  687. Weng Wong M, ‘Rules as code – Seven levels of digitisation.’ (Research Collection School Of Law, April 2020) <https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3093/> accessed 17 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  688. Werbach K, ‘Trust, But Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law’ (2019) 33/2 Berkeley Technology Law Journal; Open Google Scholar
  689. Werbach K, The Blockchain and the new architecture of trust (MIT Press 2018); Open Google Scholar
  690. Wiewiórowski W R and Wierczyński G, Informatyka prawnicza (4th edn, Wolters Kluver 2006); Open Google Scholar
  691. Wilkens R, Falk R, Smart Contracts, Grundlagen, Anwedungsfelder und rechtliche Aspekte (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  692. Wilkens R, Falk R, Smart Contracts, Grundlagen, Anwedungsfelder und rechtliche Aspekte (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  693. Witkowska-Nowakowska K in Edyta Bielak-Jomaa and Dominik Lubasz (eds), RODO. Ogólne rozporządzenie o ochronie danych. Komentarz (Wolters Kluwer 2018); Open Google Scholar
  694. Włodarczyk D, ‘Bezpieczny przedsiębiorca’, (2018) 6 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar
  695. Wódczak M and others, ‘Standardizing a Reference Model and Autonomic Network Architectures for the Self-Managing Future Internet’ (2011) 25(6) IEEE Network; Open Google Scholar
  696. Wódczak M, Autonomic Computing Enabled Cooperative Networked Design (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar
  697. Wódczak M, Autonomic Cooperative Networking (Springer 2012); Open Google Scholar
  698. Wódczak M, Autonomic Intelligence Evolved Cooperative Networking (Wiley 2018); Open Google Scholar
  699. Wood G, ‘Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger’ GAVWOOD.COM < https://gavwood.com/paper.pdf > accessed 11 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  700. Woodrow B and Ugo P, Advanced Introduction to Law and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020); Open Google Scholar
  701. World Economic Forum, ‘Bridging the Governance Gap: Dispute resolution for blockchain-based transactions’ (White Paper, December 2020) access 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  702. Wright A and De Filippi P, ‘Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of Lex Cryptographia’ (2015) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2580664> accessed 11 December 2020; Open Google Scholar
  703. Wróblewski M, ‘Gdzie zaczęła się LegalTechowa rewolucja?’, <https://blockchainext.io/gdzie-zaczela-sie-legaltechowa-rewolucja-wywiad/> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  704. Wyner A, ′An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning′ (2008) 16 , Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar
  705. Xu A L, ‘Chinese Judicial Justice on the Cloud: A Future Call or a Pandora’s Box? An Analysis of the ‘Intelligent Court System’ of China’(2017) 1 Information & Communications Technology Law; Open Google Scholar
  706. Yankovskiy R M, ‘Legal Design: New Challenges and New Opportunities’ (2019), 5 Zakon; Open Google Scholar
  707. Yano M, Dai Ch, Masuda K, Kishimoto Y, ‘Creation of Blockchain and a New Ecosystem‘ in Makoto —— Chris Dai, Kenichi Masuda, Yoshio Kishimoto (eds) Blockchain and Crypto Currency (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar
  708. Yeung K, ‘A study of the implications of advanced digital technologies (including AI systems) for the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework’ <https://rm.coe.int/a-study-of-the-implications-of-advanced-digital-technologies-including/168096bdab> access 17 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  709. Yu D and Li D, Automatic Speech Recognition (Springer London Limited 2016); Open Google Scholar
  710. Yu M, ‘Filing Lawsuits While Living Abroad: China's New Policy’ (China Justice Observer, 7 March 2021) <https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/filing-lawsuits-while-living-abroad-china-s-new-policy> accessed 12 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  711. Zaccaria G, ‘Figure del giudicare: calcolabilità, precedenti, decisione robotica’ in Rivista di diritto ir. civile., (Cedam, 2020). Open Google Scholar
  712. Żaczkiewicz-Zborska K, ‘Kancelaria w chmurze obliczeniowej naraża na szwank tajemnicę zawodową’ https://<www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/kancelaria-w-chmurze-obliczeniowej-naraza-na-szwank-tajemnice,175923.html> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  713. Zakrzewski P, ‘Sztuczna inteligencja rozsadza ramy, w których funkcjonowaliśmy do tej pory – interview with A. Przegalińska’ <culture.pl/pl/artykul/aleksandra-przegalinska-sztuczna-inteligencja-rozsadza-ramy-w-ktorych-funkcjonowalismy-do-tej-pory-wywiad> accessed 14 March 2021; Open Google Scholar
  714. Zalesińska A, `Electronic Court` in Jacek Gołaczyński, Wolfgang Kilian and Tomasz Scheffler (eds) Legal Innovation in Polish Law (C. H. Beck 2019); Open Google Scholar
  715. Zalesińska A, ‘Electronic Court Report in Proceedings Before Common Courts in Poland’ in: Jacek Gołaczyński, Wolfgang Kilian and Tomasz Scheffler (eds) Legal Innovation in Polish Law (C. H. Beck 2019); Open Google Scholar
  716. Zalewski T, ‘Definicja sztucznej inteligencji’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C.H.Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar
  717. Zalewski T, ‘LEGALTECH – wyzwanie przyszłości’, (2019) 3 Temidium; Open Google Scholar
  718. Załucki M, ‘Computers in gowns and wigs. Some remarks about a new era of judiciary’ in Laura Miraut Martin and Mariusz Załucki (eds) AI and human Rights, (in print 2021). Open Google Scholar
  719. Załucki M, ‘Wykorzystanie sztucznej inteligencji do rozstrzygania spraw spadkowych’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds) Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck, 2020); Open Google Scholar
  720. Załucki M in Dariusz Szostek (ed) Legal tech. Czyli jak bezpiecznie korzystać z narzędzi informatycznych w organizacji, w tym w kancelarii oraz dziale prawnym (C. H. Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar
  721. Zamil A M, ‘Customer Relationship Management: A Strategy to Sustain the Organization’s Name and Products in the Customers’ Minds’ (2011) 3 European Journal of Social Sciences; Open Google Scholar
  722. Zanfir-Fortuna G, ‘Commentary to Article 82’ in Christopher Kuner, Lee A. Bygrave, Christopher Docksey (eds) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Commentary (OUP 2020); Open Google Scholar
  723. Završnik A, ‘Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice settings’ (2019) 11 European Journal of Criminology; Open Google Scholar
  724. Zębala J, ’Wybrane problemy ubezpieczeń cyber risk’ (2018) 6 Monitor Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar
  725. Zeleznikow J, ‘Using Artificial Intelligence to provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support‘ (2021) 30 Group Decision and Negotiation; Open Google Scholar
  726. Zhong H, Guo Z, Tu C, Xiao C, Liu Z and Sun M, ‘Legal Judgment Prediction via Topological Learning’ (Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels 2018); Open Google Scholar
  727. Zhong H, Xiao C, Tu C and others, ‘How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence’ (Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, on-line, July 2020) 5218-5230 <www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main.466.pdf> accessed 1 July 2020; Open Google Scholar
  728. Zhong H, Xiao C, Tu C, Zhang T, Liu Z and Sun M, ′How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence′, (2020) arXiv:2004.12158 arXiv.org; Open Google Scholar
  729. Zhu H, ’"Zhejiang Experience": Problems and Countermeasures in the Construction of Internet Courts’ (Atlantis Press, September 2019) <https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/jahp-19/125917489> accessed 21 August 2021; Open Google Scholar
  730. Zieliński M, Wykładnia prawa. Zasady – reguły – wskazówki (7 ed., Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar
  731. Zimmerman E, ‘Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later’ (Gamasutra, 7 February 2012) <https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/135063/jerked_around_by_the_magic_circle_.php> accessed 17 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  732. Zimmermann Ch, ’Legal Tech – Vielfalt der Anwendungen und richtige Haftungsvorsorge’<https://anwaltsblatt.anwaltverein.de/files/anwaltsblatt.de/anwaltsblatt-online/2019-815.pdf> accessed 25th April 2021; Open Google Scholar
  733. Zins C, ‘Conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge’ (2007) 58(4) Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 479 <https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20508> accessed 11 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  734. Żok K, ‘Kwalifikacja umowy o korzystanie z programu komputerowego jako usługi (Software as a Service, SaaS) – uwagi na tle prawa polskiego i wybranych zagranicznych systemów prawnych’ (2015) 3 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; Open Google Scholar
  735. Żok K, ‘Prawna i ekonomiczna analiza umowy o korzystanie z programu komputerowego jako usługi (Software as a Service, SaaS)’ (2017) 4 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; Open Google Scholar
  736. Zsolt Z, ‘Law and Legal Science in the Age of Big Data’ (2017) 3 Intersections. EEJSP; Open Google Scholar
  737. Zuckerman M J, Swedish government land registry soon to conduct first blockchain property transaction <https://cointelegraph.com/news/swedish-government-land-registry-soon-to-conduct-first-blockchain-property-transaction> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar
  738. Żurek T, Araszkiewicz M, ‘Modeling teleological interpretation’ in Enrico Francesconi and Bart Verheij (eds) International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '13 (ACM 2013); Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Cover of book: From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law
Book Titles No access
Isabella Poewe
From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex