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

Edition
1/2021
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. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Definition
          Authors:
        2. 2. The Categorisation of LegalTech
          Authors:
        3. 3. The Scope of the Concept of LegalTech vis-à-vis Other Concepts, such as RegTech, FinTech, Insure Tech, or Legal Informatics
          Authors:
        4. 4. The Consequences of Development of LegalTech
          Authors:
        5. 5. Legal Engineering
          Authors:
      2. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Code, Algorithms, Algorithmic Technology
          Authors:
        3. 3. Law as a Code
          Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. 4.2. Types of Tokens - the Basic Knowledge of Every Legal Engineer
            Authors:
          2. 4.3. Comparative Legal Analysis of Selected Regulations Regarding the Token. Will the European Union Synthesise It?
            Authors:
          3. 4.4. What about Lawyers When the Code Becomes Law? Selected Legal Challenges of Tokenisation
            Authors:
        5. Authors:
          1. 5.1. Introduction
            Authors:
          2. 5.2. Prior control
            Authors:
          3. 5.3. Follow-up actions
            Authors:
          4. 5.4. Soft Law
            Authors:
        6. 6. Summary
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Searching for Information on the Law
          Authors:
        3. 3. The Automation of Legal Decision-Making Processes
          Authors:
        4. 4. Conclusions
          Authors:
      4. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. “If Only I Had the Right Questions!” Where Are We and Where Do We Go in the Legal Tech?
          Authors:
        3. 3. What’s Hot in the Legal Tech?
          Authors:
        4. 4. ‘All that Glitters Is Not Gold’
          Authors:
        5. 5. So, What Does ‘Artificial Intelligence’ Really Mean in the Legal Tech?
          Authors:
        6. 6. Do Machines Understand Us?
          Authors:
        7. 7. E-discovery - Where Work Became Technology Assisted
          Authors:
        8. 8. OK Google, Negotiate! When Do Lawyers Become Obsolete?
          Authors:
      1. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Modeling Legal Reasoning and Argumentation
          Authors:
        3. 3. Computational Intelligence for Legal Tasks: How to Combine it with Symbolic Legal Reasoning Models
          Authors:
        4. 4. Conclusions
          Authors:
      2. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. The Role of Technology in the Darfting and Accesing of Legal Texts
          Authors:
        3. 3. Computerization of the Texts of Legal Acts
          Authors:
        4. 4. Machine Consumable Legislation
          Authors:
        5. Conclusions
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Interpretation of Law and Interpretation of Code
          Authors:
        3. 3. Testing Code and Testing Law
          Authors:
        4. 4. The Beginning of the Road
          Authors:
      1. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Case study: using LegalTech tools in measuring digital accessibility
          Authors:
        3. 3. Lawyer's analysis of digital accessibility - methodology
          Authors:
        4. 4. Assistive technology - a new weapon in the LegalTech lawyer's arsenal?
          Authors:
        5. 5. Tools for testing digital accessibility in American court proceedings
          Authors:
        6. 6. Software used in expert witness testimony in the US and Poland
          Authors:
        7. 7. Summary
          Authors:
      2. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. Authors:
          1. 2.1. The Most Popular Tools
            Authors:
          2. 2.2. Best Practices in Omplementing LegalTech 1.0 Solutions.
            Authors:
        3. Authors:
          1. 3.1. General Remarks
            Authors:
          2. 3.2. Document Management Automation Software
            Authors:
          3. 3.3. Chatbots
            Authors:
          4. 3.4. Artificial Intelligence
            Authors:
          5. 3.5. Blockchain
            Authors:
        4. 4. LegalTech 3.0
          Authors:
        5. 5. Summary
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. Authors:
          1. 2.1. Principle of Proportionality
            Authors:
          2. 2.2. Principle of Transparency
            Authors:
          3. 2.3. Principle of Accountability
            Authors:
          4. 2.4. Due Dilligence
            Authors:
        3. Authors:
          1. Authors:
            1. How to classify information
              Authors:
            2. Context of Solution Implementation
              Authors:
            3. Assessing the Acceptability of Implementing the LegalTech Solution
              Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. Authors:
            1. Risk-based Approach in Implementing LegalTech
              Authors:
          2. Authors:
            1. Identification of Risk Areas
              Authors:
            2. Risk Identification
              Authors:
            3. Risk Impact Assessment
              Authors:
            4. Determination of the Likelihood of a Risk Occurring
              Authors:
            5. Estimation of Overall Risk Value
              Authors:
            6. Issues to be Analysed
              Authors:
          3. 4.3. Simplified Risk Analysis
            Authors:
          4. Authors:
            1. Designation of Responsible Persons
              Authors:
          5. 4.5. Identification of Countermeasures
            Authors:
          6. 4.6. Risk Monitoring
            Authors:
        5. 5. Conclusion
          Authors:
      4. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Cloud Computing 1.0
          Authors:
        3. 3. Cloud Computing 2.0 - or Multi-Cloud in the Work of Lawyers.
          Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. 4.1 General Remarks
            Authors:
          2. 4.2. Smart Contract and Personal Data
            Authors:
          3. 4.2 Cloud Computing and Electronic Communications
            Authors:
        5. 5. Summary
          Authors:
      5. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. Authors:
          1. 2.1. Legal Tech on Administrative and Organisational Activities
            Authors:
          2. Authors:
            1. 2.2.1. Crime Prediction
              Authors:
            2. 2.2.2. Automated Detection of Crime and Offenders
              Authors:
            3. 2.2.3. Automatic Evidence Analysis
              Authors:
            4. 2.2.4. Automating Decision-Making Processes
              Authors:
        3. 3. Legal Tech in Law Enforcement - a Regulatory Perspective
          Authors:
        4. 4. Summary
          Authors:
      6. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Blockchain, DLT – a Foundation of LegalTech
          Authors:
        2. 2. Influence of Blockchain on the New Paperless Approach. Datafication of the Law.
          Authors:
        3. 3. Using Blockchain in LegalTech
          Authors:
        4. 5. Definition of a smart contract
          Authors:
        5. 6. Examples of the application of the smart contract in LegalTech
          Authors:
        6. 7. Legal problems connected with the use of smart contracts in LegalTech
          Authors:
        7. 8. Summary: Should lawyers be smart?
          Authors:
      7. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Data vs Information
          Authors:
        2. 2. Information Classification as an Information Security Tool
          Authors:
        3. 3. Information Processing via LegalTech Tools
          Authors:
        4. 4. Liability for Data Security
          Authors:
        5. 5. France
          Authors:
        6. 6. Poland
          Authors:
        7. 7. Germany
          Authors:
        8. 8. Conclusion
          Authors:
      8. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. Authors:
          1. 2.1. The Past - Professional Liability Insurance
            Authors:
          2. 2.2. The Present - Cyber Risk Insurance
            Authors:
          3. 2.3. The Future - Civil Liability Insurance of Artificial Intelligence System Operator
            Authors:
        3. 3. Summary
          Authors:
      9. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Examples of Typical LegalTech 1.0 Products and Services
          Authors:
        3. 3. What Is LegalTech 1.0 Used For?
          Authors:
        4. 4. How to Implement and Use LegalTech 1.0 Tools?
          Authors:
        5. 5. LegalTech 2.0 - a Breakthrough in the Way We Think
          Authors:
        6. 6. How to Implement and Use LegalTech 2.0 Tools?
          Authors:
        7. 7. How to Find an Area to Use LegalTech 2.0 Tools?
          Authors:
        8. 8. LegalTech 2.0 and the Expectations of Lawyers and Clients
          Authors:
        9. 9. Unstoppable Trend
          Authors:
      1. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2 Definition of Artificial Intelligence
          Authors:
        3. 3. The "Black Box" Problem in AI Decision Making Process
          Authors:
        4. 4. Council of Europe Work on Artificial Intelligence
          Authors:
        5. 5. Council of Europe Guidelines on Common Courts Digitalisation
          Authors:
        6. 6. Summary and Conclusions
          Authors:
      2. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. AI i rozwój praktyki prawa
          Authors:
        3. Authors:
          1. 3.1. Document analysis – Document Review and E-discovery
            Authors:
          2. 3.2. Contract review/management software
            Authors:
          3. 3.3. Legal information systems and predictive analytics
            Authors:
        4. 4. Compliance. Risk management
          Authors:
        5. 5. Summary
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Robo-assistant: Support for the Lawyers and Client Advisor
          Authors:
        3. 3. Augmented Intelligence: Centaurs and Cyborgs
          Authors:
        4. 4. Artificial Lawyer
          Authors:
        5. 5. Instead of a Summary: Why Changes to Natural Intelligence Are Necessary
          Authors:
      4. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Legal Services and Standardization
          Authors:
        3. 3. Technology and Legislation
          Authors:
        4. 4. Legal Processes and Autonomics
          Authors:
        5. 5. Agent Systems and Definition of a Thing
          Authors:
        6. 6. Conclusion
          Authors:
      5. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Experience with LegalTech in the judiciary
          Authors:
        3. 3. AI in the judiciary
          Authors:
        4. 4. The potential of AI in the context of the functioning of the judiciary of the future
          Authors:
        5. 5. Dilemmas related to AI and the judiciary of the future
          Authors:
        6. 6. Conclusions
          Authors:
      1. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Electronic Identification
          Authors:
        2. 2. Distributed Confirmations
          Authors:
      2. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Correspondence Exchange - Terminological Remarks
          Authors:
        3. 3. Horizontal Exchange of Correspondence
          Authors:
        4. 4. Hierarchical Exchange of Correspondence
          Authors:
        5. 5. Electronic Delivery - eIDAS Regulation
          Authors:
        6. 6. Qualified Electronic Delivery Service
          Authors:
        7. Authors:
          1. 7.1. Introduction
            Authors:
          2. 7.2. Common Address Infrastructure
            Authors:
          3. 7.3. Reception and Mailing Boxes
            Authors:
          4. 7.4. Mandatory Address for the Legal Profession
            Authors:
        8. 8. Qualified Electronic Delivery in Selected EU Member States
          Authors:
        9. 9. The PEPPOL System - Description of the Solution Today and Development Prospects
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Transmission of Data and Making Data Available
          Authors:
        3. Authors:
          1. 3.1. Introduction
            Authors:
          2. 3.2 Automation of Processes Through Use of Aggregated Data
            Authors:
          3. 3.3 Searching Through Data
            Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. 4.1. Communication Within an Organisation
            Authors:
          2. 4.2. Communication with Parties from Outside an Organisation
            Authors:
        5. Authors:
          1. 5.1. Introduction
            Authors:
          2. 5.2. Information and Interaction Services
            Authors:
          3. 5.3. Transactional and Integrative Services. Personalisation as the Fifth Stage of Maturity for e-Services
            Authors:
        6. Authors:
          1. 6.1. Introduction
            Authors:
          2. 6.2. Electronic Hearings According to the Example of European States
            Authors:
        7. Authors:
          1. 7.1. Poland
            Authors:
      4. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. Cybersecurity
          Authors:
        3. 3. Cybers Hygiene – A Security Package
          Authors:
        4. 4. AI and ML vs Internet Security
          Authors:
        5. 5. The Forecast of the Future
          Authors:
      5. Authors:
        Download chapter (PDF)
        1. 1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 2. The Concept of Information Security, Data Protection and Cyber security
          Authors:
        3. Authors:
          1. 3.1 General Comments. Sources of Information Security Best Practices.
            Authors:
          2. 3.2. ISO 27001
            Authors:
          3. 3.3. NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)
            Authors:
          4. 3.4. CIS Controls/CIS Benchmarks
            Authors:
          5. Authors:
            1. 3.5.1. International Bar Association
              Authors:
            2. 3.5.2. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe
              Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. 4.1. Roles and Responsibilities
            Authors:
          2. 4.2. „Digital Hygiene”
            Authors:
          3. 4.3. Insider Threats
            Authors:
          4. 4.4. Multi-layer Security
            Authors:
          5. 4.5. Outsourcing
            Authors:
        5. 5. Summary. Security Is a Process.
          Authors:
    1. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. Introduction
        Authors:
      2. 2. Legaltech in Brazil
        Authors:
      3. 3. Blockchain and DLT in Government Systems
        Authors:
      4. 4. Online Court Proceedings
        Authors:
      5. 5. Artificial Intelligence in the Justice System
        Authors:
      6. 6. Plans for the Future
        Authors:
      7. 7. Final Considerations
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Authors:
        1. Bejing Internet Court
          Authors:
      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.
        Authors:
      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...
        Authors:
      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.
        Authors:
    3. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. A progressive but satisfactory Legaltech adoption by French law firms
        Authors:
      2. 2. An ambitious but underperformed digital transformation of the French justice system
        Authors:
      3. 3. E-delivery
        Authors:
      4. 4. Plans for the future
        Authors:
    4. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Authors:
        1. 1.1. Courts
          Authors:
        2. 1.2. Law firms
          Authors:
        3. 1.3. Arbitration
          Authors:
      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.
        Authors:
      3. 3. Electronic communication with the court. Legal basis, method of communication, transmission of documents.
        Authors:
      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...
        Authors:
      5. 5. AI in the justice system and automatic decisions.
        Authors:
      6. 6. The plans for the future.
        Authors:
    5. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Authors:
        1. 1.1. Introduction
          Authors:
        2. 1.2. Technology at the Courts
          Authors:
        3. 1.3. Technology at the Public Prosecutors’ Organisation
          Authors:
        4. 1.4. Technology at Law Firms
          Authors:
      2. 2. Blockchain within the Government
        Authors:
      3. Authors:
        1. 3.1. A Short History of Electronic Litigation in Hungary
          Authors:
        2. 3.2. Legal Basis
          Authors:
        3. 3.3. Details of the electronic communication with courts
          Authors:
        4. Authors:
          1. 3.4.1. Company Registration Procedure.
            Authors:
          2. 3.4.2. Order for Payment Procedure.
            Authors:
      4. 4. Online Procedures
        Authors:
      5. 5. Use of Artificial Intelligence, and Automated Decision-making
        Authors:
      6. 6. Future Plans
        Authors:
    6. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. Introduction
        Authors:
      2. Authors:
        1. 2.1. Legal definition of DLTs and smart contract
          Authors:
        2. 2.2. Institutional and governmental initiatives
          Authors:
        3. 2.3. Applications of DLTs in the legal sector
          Authors:
      3. Authors:
        1. 3.1. Notifications of procedural documents by electronic means
          Authors:
        2. 3.2. Filing of procedural documents and evidence by electronic means
          Authors:
        3. 3.3. Computer trial dossier
          Authors:
        4. 3.4. Creation of computer document
          Authors:
        5. 3.5. Communication of the sentence and access to consultation services
          Authors:
      4. 4. Civil judicial proceedings during epidemiological emergency
        Authors:
      5. 5. Alternative dispute resolution systems
        Authors:
      6. 6. Conclusive remarks
        Authors:
    7. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. To which extent are LegalTech means used in your country: in courts, arbitrations, law firms?
        Authors:
      2. 2. Are Blockchain and DLT technologies used in courts or other public institutions?
        Authors:
      3. Authors:
        1. Future plans
          Authors:
    8. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. LegalTech used in Mexico
        Authors:
      2. 2. Blockchain and DLT in government systems.
        Authors:
      3. 3. Electronic communication with the Court.
        Authors:
      4. 4. Online court proceedings.
        Authors:
      5. 5. AI in the justice system.
        Authors:
      6. 6. Future plans and challenges.
        Authors:
    9. Authors:
      Download chapter (PDF)
      1. Introduction
        Authors:
      2. Electronic writ of payment procedure
        Authors:
      3. Programs used for managing court proceedings and secretariat’s work (Sawa, Sędzia-2)
        Authors:
      4. Software used for recording court sessions
        Authors:
      5. Software used for operating remote court hearings
        Authors:
      6. Information Portals
        Authors:
      7. PESEL-SAD
        Authors:
      8. System of Random Allocation of Cases
        Authors:
      9. Summary
        Authors:
  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. Ramos A, (coord.), ‘Observatorio: Avances de Justicia Abierta en Línea en México 2020’ (Escuela Libre de Derecho, 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  2. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  3. Rawhan I and Simari G R (eds), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, (Springer 2009); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  4. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  5. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  6. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  7. Reidenberg J, ‘Lex Informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology’ (1998) 76 Texas Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  8. Reiter R, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’ (1980) 13 Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  9. Remus D A, ‘The Uncertain Promise of Predictive Coding’ (2014) 99 Iowa Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  10. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  11. Richter M M and Weber R O, Case-Based Reasoning. A Textbook (Springer-Verlag 2013); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  12. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  13. Rivera M A, ‘An introduction to Amparo Theory’ (2020) 12, 2 Krytyka Prawa; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  14. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  15. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  16. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  17. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  18. Rościszewski A, ‘Odpowiedzialność cywilna adwokatów’ (2014) 10 Palestra; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  19. Roslin R, ‘Legal Technology and In-house Counsels Today’ (Staranise, 1 June 2020) accessed 30 September 2020; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  20. Ross O, Jensen J R and Asheim T, ‘Assets under Tokenization’ (2019) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3488344> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  21. Roth N, ‘An Architectural Assessment of Bitcoin: Using the Systems Modeling Language‘ (2015) 44 Procedia Computer Science; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  22. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  23. Rowley J, ‘The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy’ (2007) 33(2) Journal of Information Science; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  24. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  25. Ruffini G, ‘Il Processo Civile di fronte alla svolta telematica’ in (2019) 4-5 Riv. dir. Proc; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  26. Russell S and Norvig P, Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach, (3rd ed. Pearson 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  27. Russell S J, “Artificial Intelligence. A Binary Approach,” in S. Matthew Liao (ed.), Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  28. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  29. Salen K and Zimmerman E, Rules of play: game design fundamentals (MIT Press 2003); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  30. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  31. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  32. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  33. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  34. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  35. Sartor G, ‘Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality’ (2010) 18(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  36. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  37. Sartor G, Casanovas P, Biasiotti M A and Fernández-Barrera M (eds) Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Theories, Domains, Methodologies (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  38. Sartor G, Legal Reasoning, (Springer 2005); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  39. Sartor G, ‘Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories’ (2009) 17(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  40. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  41. Sawicki J, ’Ubezpieczenie Business Interruption (BI) jako zabezpieczenie przyszłych dochodów przedsiębiorstwa’ (2008) 7 Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  42. Scharf J, Künstliche Intelligenz un Recht. Von den Wissensrepräsentation zur automatisierten Entscheidungsfindung (Weblaw 2015); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  43. Scherer M, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?‘ (2019) 36 Journal of International Arbitration; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  44. Schmidt A, `Technologie komunikacyjno-informatyczne w sądownictwie w Holandii – aktualna sytuacja` (2006) 16 Prawo mediów elektronicznych; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  45. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  46. Schweighofer E, Legal Knowledge Representation (Kluwer Law International 1999); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  47. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  48. Shah R, ′Law Enforcement and Data Privacy - A Forward-Looking Approach′ (2015) 125 Yale Law Journal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  49. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  50. Shekhar S‘Sarmah, Application of Blockchain in Cloud Computing’ (2019) 8 12 International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  51. Sheppard B, ‘Incomplete Innovation and the Premature Disruption of Legal Sevices’ (2015) 1797 Michigan State Law Rev; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  52. Singh B P and Tripathi A K, ‘Blockchain Technology and Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) 24 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  53. Sirena P, ‘I sistemi di ADR nel settore bancario e finanziario’ (2018) 9 Nuova giur. civ. Comm; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  54. Siwek M, ‘Prawa i obowiązki sędziego’(2006) 13 Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  55. Size R, ‘Taking advantage of advances in technology to enhance the rule of law’ (2017) 91 Australian Law Journal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  56. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  57. Smith JC, ′Machine Intelligence and Legal Reasoning′ (1998), 73 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  58. Smoloń D, Sokoliński O and Szarek G, ’Polisa od sztucznej inteligencji’, (2018) 10 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  59. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  60. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  61. Sourdin T, ‘Judge v. robot? Artificial Intelligence and judicial decision making’(2018) 4 UNSW Law Journal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  62. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  63. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  64. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  65. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  66. Srikanteswara R and others ‘Data security using encryption on multi-cloud’ (2018) 5, 6 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  67. Srinivasan S, Cloud Computing Basics (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  68. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W. 2d 749, (Wisconsin 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  69. STF. First Panel. AI 564.765-RJ, DJ 17/3/2006; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  70. Strutin K, ′Databases, E-Discovery and Criminal Law′ (2008) 15 Rich. JL & Tech.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  71. Studnicki F, Łachwa A, Fall J and Stabrawa E, Odesłania w tekstach prawnych. Ku metodom ich zautomatyzowanej interpretacji (ZNUJ 1990); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  72. Surden H, ‘Machine Learning and Law’ (2014) 89 Washington Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  73. Susskind R, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University Press 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  74. Susskind R, Tomorrow’s Lawyers. An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford University Press 2nd edn, 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  75. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  76. Susskind R and Susskind D, The Future of the Professions (Oxford University Press 2015); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  77. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  78. Swan M, Blockchain - A Blueprint for a New Economy (O‘Reilly 2015); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  79. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  80. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  81. Szewczuk A, ’Business interruption: ewolucja kompleksowego programu ubezpieczeniowego dla sektora małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw’ (2010) 50 “Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  82. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  83. Szmit M, 'Biegły informatyk w postępowaniu cywilnym' (2010) 121/1078 Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Łódzkiej; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  84. Szmit M, 'O standardach informatyki śledczej' (2018) 355 Studia Ekonomiczne; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  85. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  86. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  87. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  88. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  89. Szostek D, Blockchain and the law (1st edn, Nomos 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  90. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  91. Tanenbaum A S and Wetherall D J, Computer Networks (Prentice Hall 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  92. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  93. Thagard P, Coherence in Thought and Action (The MIT Press 2000); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  94. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  95. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  96. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  97. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  98. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  99. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  100. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  101. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  102. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  103. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  104. Toulmin S, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press 2003 (1st ed. 1958); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  105. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  106. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  107. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  108. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  109. Triumph Controls UK Ltd & anr v Primus International Holding Co & ors [2019] EWHC 565 (TCC); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  110. Turner J, ′Managing Digital Discovery In Criminal Cases′ (2019) 109 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  111. Turner J, Robot Rules. Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  112. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  113. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  114. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  115. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  116. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  117. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  118. van der Put M, ‘Kan artificiële intelligentie de rechtspraak betoveren’ (2019) 2 Rechtstreeks; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  119. van Kralingen R, Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law (Kluwer Law International 1995); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  120. Verheij B, ‘Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation’, (2003) 150 (1-2) Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  121. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  122. Verheij B, ‘DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions’, (2003) 13(3) Journal of Logic and Computation; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  123. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  124. Vigliotti M G, Jones H, The Executive Guide to Blockchian (Palgrave Macmillan 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  125. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  126. Virtual Financial Assets Act (VFA) <https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/590/eng/pdf> access 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  127. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  128. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  129. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  130. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  131. Wagner J, Legal Tech und Legal Robots. Der Wandel im Rechtswesen durch neue Technologien und Künstliche Intelligenz (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  132. Wagner J, Legaltech und Legal Robots. Der Wandel im Rechtswesen durch neue Technologien und Kunstliche Intelligenz, (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  133. Walton D, Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law (Springer 2005); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  134. Walton D, Reed C and Macagno F, Argumentation Schemes (Cambridge University Press 2008); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  135. Walton D, Sartor G and Macagno F, Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and argumentation (Cambridge University Press 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  136. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  137. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  138. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  139. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  140. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  141. Weinstein J, Abrams N, Brewer S and Medwed D, Evidence (Foundation Press 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  142. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  143. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  144. Werbach K, ‘Trust, But Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law’ (2019) 33/2 Berkeley Technology Law Journal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  145. Werbach K, The Blockchain and the new architecture of trust (MIT Press 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  146. Wiewiórowski W R and Wierczyński G, Informatyka prawnicza (4th edn, Wolters Kluver 2006); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  147. Wilkens R, Falk R, Smart Contracts, Grundlagen, Anwedungsfelder und rechtliche Aspekte (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  148. Wilkens R, Falk R, Smart Contracts, Grundlagen, Anwedungsfelder und rechtliche Aspekte (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  149. Witkowska-Nowakowska K in Edyta Bielak-Jomaa and Dominik Lubasz (eds), RODO. Ogólne rozporządzenie o ochronie danych. Komentarz (Wolters Kluwer 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  150. Włodarczyk D, ‘Bezpieczny przedsiębiorca’, (2018) 6 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  151. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  152. Wódczak M, Autonomic Computing Enabled Cooperative Networked Design (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  153. Wódczak M, Autonomic Cooperative Networking (Springer 2012); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  154. Wódczak M, Autonomic Intelligence Evolved Cooperative Networking (Wiley 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  155. Wood G, ‘Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger’ GAVWOOD.COM < https://gavwood.com/paper.pdf > accessed 11 December 2020; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  156. Woodrow B and Ugo P, Advanced Introduction to Law and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  157. World Economic Forum, ‘Bridging the Governance Gap: Dispute resolution for blockchain-based transactions’ (White Paper, December 2020) access 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  158. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  159. Wróblewski M, ‘Gdzie zaczęła się LegalTechowa rewolucja?’, <https://blockchainext.io/gdzie-zaczela-sie-legaltechowa-rewolucja-wywiad/> accessed 25 April 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  160. Wyner A, ′An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning′ (2008) 16 , Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  161. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  162. Yankovskiy R M, ‘Legal Design: New Challenges and New Opportunities’ (2019), 5 Zakon; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  163. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  164. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  165. Yu D and Li D, Automatic Speech Recognition (Springer London Limited 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  166. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  167. Zaccaria G, ‘Figure del giudicare: calcolabilità, precedenti, decisione robotica’ in Rivista di diritto ir. civile., (Cedam, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  168. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  169. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  170. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  171. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  172. Zalewski T, ‘Definicja sztucznej inteligencji’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C.H.Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  173. Zalewski T, ‘LEGALTECH – wyzwanie przyszłości’, (2019) 3 Temidium; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  174. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  175. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  176. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  177. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  178. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  179. Završnik A, ‘Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice settings’ (2019) 11 European Journal of Criminology; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  180. Zębala J, ’Wybrane problemy ubezpieczeń cyber risk’ (2018) 6 Monitor Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  181. Zeleznikow J, ‘Using Artificial Intelligence to provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support‘ (2021) 30 Group Decision and Negotiation; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  182. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  183. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  184. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  185. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  186. Zieliński M, Wykładnia prawa. Zasady – reguły – wskazówki (7 ed., Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  187. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  188. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  189. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  190. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  191. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  192. Zsolt Z, ‘Law and Legal Science in the Age of Big Data’ (2017) 3 Intersections. EEJSP; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  193. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  194. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  195. AB2L, ‘Radar de Lawtechs e Legaltechs’ (ab2l.org.br) <https://ab2l.org.br/radar-lawtechs/> accessed 10 February 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  196. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  197. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  198. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  199. Adamczewski P, `Ku dojrzałości cyfrowej organizacji inteligentnych‘, (2018) 161 Studia i Prace. Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  200. Adamczewski P, `Organizacje inteligentne w zintegrowanym rozwoju gospodarki` (2016) 2 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  201. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  202. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  203. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  204. Alchourrón C E and Bulygin E, Normative Systems (Springer-Verlag 1971); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  205. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  206. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  207. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  208. Alexy R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, transl. J. Rivers (Oxford University Press 2002); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  209. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  210. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  211. Alpaydin E, Machine Learning. The New AI (The MIT Press 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  212. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  213. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  214. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  215. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  216. Amendolagine V, ‘Percorsi di giurisprudenza - il processo civile telematico a cinque anni dalla sua introduzione’ (2020) 1 Giurisprudenza Italiana; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  217. Amrosz M, ’Sztuczna inteligencja z obowiązkowym ubezpieczeniem OC?’ (2021) 5 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  218. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  219. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  220. Andrews v. Blick Art Materials LLC 286 F Supp 3d 365 (NY 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  221. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  222. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  223. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  224. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  225. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  226. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  227. Armour J, Parnham R and Sako M, ‘Augmented Lawyering’ (2020) 558 European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  228. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  229. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, ‘Automatically Classifying Case Texts and Predicting Outcomes’ (2009) 17(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  230. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  231. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  232. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  233. Ashley K D and Brüninghaus S, Modeling Legal Argument. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (MIT Press 1990); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  234. Atienza M and Ruiz-Manero J, A Theory of Legal Sentences (Springer 1998); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  235. Atkinson K and Bench-Capon T, Argumentation Schemes in AI and Law (in press 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  236. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  237. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  238. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  239. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  240. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  241. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  242. Bar G, ‘Przejrzystość, w tym wyjaśnialność, jako wymóg prawny dla systemów Sztucznej Inteligencji’ (2020) 20 Prawo Nowych Technologii; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  243. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  244. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  245. Baroni P, Gabbay D, Parent X, van der Torre L (eds) Handbook of Formal Argumentation (College Publications 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  246. Barotanyi B, ‘E-Recht: Law Making in a Contemporary Way’ (2007) 1 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  247. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  248. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  249. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  250. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  251. Beck K, Test Driven Development: By Example (1 ed., Addison-Wesley Professional 2002); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  252. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  253. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  254. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  255. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  256. Bench-Capon T and Coenen F P, ‘Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems.’ (1992) 1 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  257. Bench-Capon T, ‘Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law’, 11(1-2) Argument and Computation; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  258. Bench-Capon T, ‘HYPO'S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue’ (2017), 25(2) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  259. Bench-Capon T and Sartor G, ‘A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values’, 150(102) Artificial Intelligence; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  260. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  261. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  262. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  263. Bex F, Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. A Formal Hybrid Theory, (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  264. Biallaß I D in Stephan Oryand Stephan Weth (eds) Elektronischer Rechtsverkehr (1st edition, juris Allianz, 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  265. Bieluk M, ‘Cywilnoprawna odpowiedzialność profesjonalnego pełnomocnika za błąd’ (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku 2019) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  266. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  267. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  268. Bing J, ‘Performance of Legal Text Retrieval Systems: The Curse of Boole’ (1987) 79 Law. Libr. J.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  269. Bing J, ′Let there be LITE: a brief history of legal information retrieval′ (2010), 1 European Journal of Law and Technology; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  270. Black H C, ‘Token’, The Black’s Law Dictionary (Rev 4th edn, West Publishing Co. 1968); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  271. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  272. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  273. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  274. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  275. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  276. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  277. Borstrom N, Superinteligencja. Scenariusze, strategie, zagrożenia (Helion, Gliwice 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  278. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  279. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  280. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  281. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  282. Branting K, ‘Building explanations from rules and structured cases’ (1991) 34(6) International Journal of Man–Machine Studies; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  283. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  284. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  285. Brauer J, Programming Smalltalk – Object-Orientation from the Beginning (Springer 2015); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  286. Braun S, `Remote Interpreting` in Holly Mikkelson and Renėe. Jourdenais (eds) Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (Routledge 2015) 352. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  287. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  288. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  289. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  290. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  291. Brożek B, Rationality and Discourse. Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law (Wolters Kluwer 2007); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  292. Buchanan B and Headrick T, ′Some Speculation About Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning′ (1970) 23, 1 Stan. L.aw Rev; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  293. Buchanan B, Shortliffe E H, Rule-based Expert Systems. The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project (Reading 1984); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  294. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  295. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  296. Burrell J, ‘How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms‘ (2016) 3(1) Big Data & Society; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  297. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  298. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  299. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  300. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  301. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  302. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  303. Cambridge Dictionary, ‘Token’ <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/token> accessed 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  304. Campos J, ‘La justicia penal en tiempos del Covid-19. Los retos de las videoconferencias’(2020) VI, 6 Paréntesis legal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  305. Canivet G, ‘«Preuve et Blockchain», présentation de la table ronde’, (2019) 2 Dalloz IP/IT 2019; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  306. Carabantes M, ‘Black-box artificial intelligence: an epistemological and critical analysis‘ (2019) 35 AI & Society; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  307. Cardenas J, ‘La nueva Ley de Amparo”, Cuestiones Constitucionales’(2013) 29 Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  308. Carneiro D, Novais P, Andrade F, Zeleznikow J and Neves J, ‘ODR: an Artificial Intelligence Perspective‘ (2014) 41 Artificial Intelligence Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  309. Carnelutti F, La prova civile. Parte generale. Il concetto giuridico della prova ( Giuffrè, 1992) 9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  310. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  311. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  312. Case 128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:407; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  313. Case 393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace - Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvu kultury [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:816; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  314. Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems [2020] EU:C:2020:559; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  315. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  316. Casellas N, Legal Ontology Engineering. Methodologies, Modelling Trends, and the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge (Springer 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  317. Castellani M, Pomi P, Triberti C and Turato A (eds), Blockchain: Guida pratica tecnico giuridica all'uso (Goware 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  318. CCBE, ‘Komunikacja elektroniczna i Internet –przewodnik CCBE’ (2013)142 Radca Prawny Dodatek Naukowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  319. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  320. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  321. CEF Digital, ‘eID’ <https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eID> accessed: 21 February 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  322. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  323. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  324. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  325. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  326. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  327. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  328. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  329. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  330. Check Point Data, ‘Raport Cyberbezpieczeństwa’ (2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  331. Chłopecki A, Sztuczna inteligencja - szkice prawnicze i futurologiczne (2nd edn, C. H. Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  332. Chłopecki A, Sztuczna inteligencja: szkice prawnicze i futurologiczne (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  333. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  334. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  335. Christensen C, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston (MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  336. Christian G, ‘Predictive Coding: Adopting and Adapting Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Civil Litigation’ (2019) 97 The Canadian Bar Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  337. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  338. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  339. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  340. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  341. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  342. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  343. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  344. Collins A M and Quillian R M, ‘Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory’ (1969) 8(2) Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  345. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  346. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  347. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  348. Conrad J G, ‘E-Discovery revisited: The need for artificial intelligence beyond information retrieval’(2010) 4 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  349. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  350. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  351. Consolo C, Spiegazioni di diritto processuale civile (2nd ed., Giappichelli, Torino, 2014); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  352. Consumer Protection Federal Agency, Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor, ‘Informe Anual de la Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor 2019’ (PROFECO, 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  353. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  354. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  355. Coormen T H, Algorithms Unlocked (MIT Press 2013); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  356. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  357. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  358. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  359. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  360. Corrales M, Fenwick M, Haapio H (eds), Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  361. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  362. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  363. Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (‘CEPEJ’), ‘European judicial systems – Efficiency and quality of justice’ (CEPEJ, 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  364. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  365. Cui Y, Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Modernization (Springer, 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  366. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  367. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  368. Cyrul W and Pełech–Pilichowski T, ‘Legislating in Hypertext’, (2020) 118 OSAP 27; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  369. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  370. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  371. D’Amato A, ‘Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?’(1997) 11 Georgia Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  372. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe - 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  373. Dale R, ‘Law and Word Order: NLP in Legal Tech’ (2019) 25(1) Natural Language Engineering; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  374. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  375. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  376. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  377. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  378. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  379. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  380. Daylami N, ‘The origin and Construct of Cloud Computing’, (2015) 9, 2 International Journal of the Academic Business World; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  381. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  382. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  383. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  384. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  385. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  386. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  387. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  388. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  389. Deloitte Legal, ‘What’s your problem? Legal Technology’ (2018) Legal Management Consulting; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  390. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  391. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  392. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  393. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  394. Diaz v. Lobel's of New York LLC 16-CV-6349 (NY 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  395. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  396. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  397. Dignum V, Responsible Artificial Intelligence, How to Develop and Use., AI in a Responsible Way (Springer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  398. Dimitropoulos G,‘The Law of Blockchain‘ (2020) 1117 Washington Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  399. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  400. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  401. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  402. Domingos P, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Brillance Audio 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  403. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  404. Dunbar K, ‘Problem Solving’’ in William Bechtel and George Graham (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Science (Blackwell Publishers 1999); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  405. Dybała G and Szpyt K, ’Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza za sztuczną inteligencję’ (2021) 5 Gazeta Ubezpieczeniowa; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  406. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  407. Dymiński M, Ferenc D, ‘GDPR w łańcuchu bloków’ (2020) 6 Przegląd Prawa Publicznego; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  408. Dymitruk M, ‘Sztuczna inteligencja w wymiarze sprawiedliwości?’ in Luigi Lai and Marek Świerczyński (eds), Prawo sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  409. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  410. Earsl A R,‘Multi-cloud strategy’, <https://<searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/definition/multi-cloud-strategy> accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  411. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  412. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  413. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  414. Ebers M, LegalTech and EU Consumer Law (Cambridge 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  415. Ebers M and Navas S, Algorithms and law (UCL 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  416. Electronic Transactions Act <https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/ETA2010#P1I> accessed 27 January 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  417. Endicott T, Vagueness in Law (Oxford University Press 2000); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  418. Engstron D F, ‘Post-COVID courts’ (2020) 68 UCLA Law Review Discourse; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  419. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  420. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  421. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  422. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  423. European Commision, ‘Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field. Final report” (Publication Office European Union 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  424. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  425. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  426. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  427. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  428. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  429. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  430. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  431. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  432. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  433. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  434. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  435. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  436. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  437. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  438. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  439. Ferguson A, ′Predictive Policing′ (2017) 94 Washington University Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  440. Ferrari F, ‘Il processo civile telematico’ in Lotario Dittrich (ed) Diritto Processuale Civile (Utet Giuridica, 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  441. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  442. Feteris E, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (Springer 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  443. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  444. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  445. Finck M, ‘Smart Contracts as a Form of Solely Automated Processing under the GDPR’ (2019) 9(2) International Data Privacy Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  446. Finck M, Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe (CUP 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  447. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  448. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  449. Finocchiaro G, ‘Intelligenza artificiale e protezione dei dati personali’ (2019) Giursprudenza Italiana. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  450. Finocchiaro G, ‘Intelligenza artificiale e responsabilità’ (2020) 2 Contr. impr.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  451. Fitzgibbons L, ‘Data in use. Definition’, <https://www.whatis.techtarget.com/definition/data-in-use>, accessed 15 January 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  452. Flasiński M, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (Springer International Publishing 2016); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  453. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  454. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  455. Florida v. Espinoza, Case No. 3D16-1860; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  456. Ford M, Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it (Packt Publishing, November 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  457. Francesconi E, ‘A description logic framework for advanced accessing and reasoning over normative provision’ (2014) 22(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  458. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  459. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  460. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  461. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  462. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  463. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  464. Gacyk M, Zabawy w Boga. Ludzie o magnetycznych palcach (Agora 2020) 1901; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  465. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  466. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  467. Garapon A, ‘Les enjeux de la justice prédictive’ (2017) 1-2 La Semaine juridique; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  468. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  469. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  470. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  471. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  472. Giaccaglia M, ‘Considerazioni su blockchain e smart contracts (oltre le criptovalute)’ (2019) 3 Contr. impr.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  473. Gill K S, ‘Data to Decision and Judgment Making – a Question of Wisdom’ (2018) 30 IFAC Papers On Line; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  474. Girasa R, Artificial Intelligence as a Disruptive Technology. Economic Transformation and Government Regulation (Palgrave Macmillan 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  475. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  476. Gołaczyński J (eds), Informatyzacja postępowania sądowego w prawie polskim i wybranych państw (C. H. Beck 2009); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  477. Gołaczyński J, ‘e-Sąd przyszłości‘ (2019) 2 Monitor Prawniczy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  478. Gomez v. General Nutrition Corp. 323 F Supp 3d 1368 (FL 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  479. González-Espejo M-J and Pavón J (eds), An Introductory Guide to Artificial Intelligence for Legal Professionals (Kluwer Law International 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  480. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  481. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  482. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  483. Goodman A, ‘Predictive Coding: A Better Way to Deal with Electronically Stored Information’ (2016) 43(1) Litigation; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  484. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  485. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  486. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  487. Gottschalk v Benson (1972) 409 U.S. 63; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  488. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  489. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  490. Grabowski M and Zając A, ‘Dane, informacje, wiedza – próba definicji’ (2009) 798 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  491. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  492. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  493. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  494. Grisham J, A Time to Kill (Delta 2004) 369.. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  495. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  496. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  497. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  498. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  499. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  500. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  501. Gürcan B, ‘Jurisdiction on Blockchain’ (2020) ICBEMM-ICISSS 14; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  502. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  503. Gyuranecz F Z, Krausz B and Papp D, ‘The AI is Now in Session. The Impact of Digitalization on Courts’ (2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  504. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  505. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  506. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  507. Hadj-Mabrouk H, ‘Contribution of Artificial Intelligence to Risk Assessment of Railway Accidents‘ (2019) 5(2) Urban Rail Transit; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  508. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  509. Hage J C, Reasoning with Rules. An Essay in Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic (Springer 1997); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  510. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  511. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  512. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  513. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  514. Harrington W G, ‘A Brief History of Computer-Assisted Legal Research’ (1984) 77, 3 Law. Libr. J.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  515. Hartung M, Bues M-M, Halbleib G, Legal Tech. Die Digitalisierung des Rechtsmarkts (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  516. Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halbleib G, Legal Tech: How Technology Is Changing the Legal World (C. H. Beck 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  517. Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halblieb G, Legal Tech, How Technology is Changing the Legal World (Nomos 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  518. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  519. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  520. Hellwig D, Karlic G, Huchzermeier A, Build Your Own Blockchain (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  521. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  522. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  523. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  524. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  525. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  526. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  527. Holmes O W, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 457 Harvard Law Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  528. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  529. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  530. Hongdao Q and others, ‘Legal Technologies in Action: The Future of the Legal Market in Light of Disruptive Innovations’ (2019) Sustainability; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  531. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  532. Horty J F, ‘Reasoning with dimension and magnitudes’ (2019) 27(3) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  533. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  534. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  535. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  536. Howard L K, ‘Security by Design’ (2019) 12(2) Journal of Physical Security; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  537. Howarth D, Law As Engineering: Thinking about What Lawyers Do (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  538. Hudobnik M, ′Data protection and the law enforcement directive: a procrustean bed across Europe? ′ (2020) 21 ERA Forum; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  539. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  540. I ACa 504/19, Legalis; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  541. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  542. ILTA's, ‘2020 Technology Survey’, <https://www.iltanet.org/resources/publications/surveys/2020ts?ssopc=1>, accessed 9 March 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  543. Indurkhya N, Damerau F J, Handbook of Natural Language Processing (Chapman & Hall/CRC 2010); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  544. Innovative Technology Arrangement and Services Act (ITAS) <https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/592/eng/pdf> access 2 February 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  545. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  546. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  547. International Bar Association, 'LPRU Cybersecurity' (Ibanet.org, 2018) <https://www.ibanet.org/LPRU/Cybersecurity> accessed 17 August 2021 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  548. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  549. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  550. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  551. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  552. IV Ka 290/18, Legalis; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  553. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  554. Janowski J, Informatyka prawa. Zadania i znaczenie w związku z kształtowaniem się elektronicznego obrotu prawnego (Wydawnictwo UMCS 2011) 328 – 340; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  555. Janowski J, Informatyka prawnicza (C. H. Beck 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  556. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  557. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) from 27 November 2019, VIII ZR 285/18, NJW 2020; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  558. Kahnemann D, Thinking fast and slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  559. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  560. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  561. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  562. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  563. Kephart J O and Chess D M, ‘The Vision of Autonomic Computing’ (2003) 36(1) IEEE Computer; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  564. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  565. Kerikmae T (ed), Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union. Normative Realities and Trends (Springer 2014); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  566. Kerikmäe T and others, ‘Legal Technology for Law Firms: Determining Roadmaps for Innovation’ (2018) Croatian International Relations Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  567. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  568. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  569. Kitchin R, ‘Thinking critically about and researching algorithms’ (2017) 20:1 Information, Communication & Society; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  570. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  571. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  572. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  573. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  574. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  575. Krasuski A, Status prawny sztucznego agenta, Podstawy prawne zastosowania sztucznej inteligencji (C. H. Beck 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  576. Kubat M, An Introduction to Machine Learning (Springer International Publishing 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  577. Kucharska E, ′BriefCam - one system, many possibilities′ (2019) 12, Stołeczny Magazyn Policyjny; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  578. Kucharski B, Świadczenie ubezpieczyciela w umowie ubezpieczenia mienia (Wolters Kluwer 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  579. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  580. Kulawiński M, ‘Transhumanizm, cyborgizacja, ulepszanie człowieka’ <researchgate.net/publication/334448348_Transhumanizm_cyborgizacja_ulepszanie_czlowieka> accessed 13 January 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  581. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  582. Layne K, Lee J, `Developing Fully Functional e-Government: A Four Stage Model` (2001) 18 Government Information Quarterly 122; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  583. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  584. Leake D B, ‘Case-Based Reasoning,’ in William Bechtel and George Graham (ed), A Companion to Cognitive Science (Blackwell Publishers 1999); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  585. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  586. Lee K-F, Inteligencja Sztuczna Rewolucja Prawdziwa. Chiny, USA i przyszłość świata (Media Rodzina 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  587. Leeb C-M, Digitalisierung, Legal Technology und Innovation (Duncker & Humblot, 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  588. Legaltechies, ‘El estado de la Legaltech en… Mèxico’ (legaltechies.ec, 25 November 2020) <https://bit.ly/371wbZk> accessed 10 February 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  589. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  590. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  591. Legrand J, ′Some guidelines for fuzzy sets application in legal reasoning′ (1999) 7 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  592. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  593. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  594. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  595. Leiser M R, ‘Private jurisprudence’ and the right to be forgotten balancing test,’ (2020) 29 Computer Law & Security Review; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  596. Lemkowska M, ‘Funkcje ubezpieczeń gospodarczych a zrównoważony rozwój’, (2020) 2 Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  597. Lessig L, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1st edn, Basic Books 1999); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  598. Lessig L, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Version 2.0 (2nd revised edn, Basic Books 2006); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  599. Leszczyński L, ‘O wykładni prawa i jej wymiarze praktycznym. Kontekst sądowego stosowania prawa’ (2020) 2 Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  600. Leszczyński L, ‘Wykładnia operatywna (podstawowe właściwości).’ (2009) 6 Państwo i Prawo; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  601. Łętowska E, ‘Dekalog dobrego sędziego’(2016) 1 Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  602. Letterton R, ‘L’accés numérique au droit’ (2018) 3 Annales des Mines; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  603. Licini C, ‘Il notaio dell'era digitale: riflessioni gius-economiche’ (2018) 2 Notariato; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  604. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  605. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  606. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  607. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  608. Liu L, Introduction to the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services (Chapman and Hall/CRC 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  609. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  610. Loevinger L, ‘Jurimetrics: The Next Step Forward’ (1949) 33, 5 Minn L Rev; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  611. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  612. Losano M G, Giuscibernetica: Macchine e modelli cibernetici nel diritto (Einaudi 1969); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  613. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  614. Lubasz D in Edyta Bielak-Jomaa and, Dominik. Lubasz (eds) RODO. Ogólne Rozporządzenie o Ochronie Danych. komentarz (Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  615. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  616. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  617. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  618. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  619. Malinowska K, ’Aspekty prawne ubezpieczenia cyber ryzyk’ (2018) 2 Prawo Asekuracyjne; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  620. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  621. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  622. Marano P and Noussia K. (eds), InsurTech: A Legal and Regulatory View (Springer 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  623. Marano P and Szostek D, Smart Contract and Insurance (Palgrawe McMillan 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  624. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  625. Markowski K, ’Kryptowaluty. Powstanie-typologia-charakterystyka’ (2019) 3 Civitas et Lex; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  626. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  627. Martinek J, ‘Lisp – opis, realizacja i zastosowania’ (Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne, Warszawa 1980); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  628. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  629. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  630. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  631. Maxwell D, Speed Ch, Pschetz L, ‘Story Blocks: Reimagining Narrative through the Blockchain.’ (2017) 23 Convergence; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  632. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  633. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  634. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  635. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  636. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  637. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  638. McCarty L T,′Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning′ (1977) 90, 5 Harv. L.aw Rev.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  639. McEwan I, Maszyny takie jak ja, (Albatros 2019); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  640. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  641. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  642. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  643. Medvedeva M, ‘Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights’, (2020) 28 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  644. Mehl L, Automation in the legal world (National Physical Laboratory, 1958); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  645. Mehl L, Automation in the legal world (National Physical Laboratory 1958); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  646. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  647. Meijer A and Wessels M, ′Predictive Policing: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks′ (2019) 42, International Journal of Public Administration; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  648. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  649. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  650. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  651. Miller M S, ‘The Future of Law’ CAPLET.COM (August 1997) <www.caplet.com/security/futurelaw> accessed 16 March 2021; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  652. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  653. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  654. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  655. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  656. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  657. Minsky M, ‘A Framework for Representing Knowledge’ in Patrick H. Winston (ed) Psychology of Computer Vision (MIT Press 1975); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  658. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  659. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  660. Modgil S, Prakken H, The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial, (2014) Argument and Computation 5(1); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  661. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  662. Modrzejewski M, ’Podatkowe aspekty korzystania z oprogramowania komputerowego w modelu SaaS (Software as a Service)’ (2016) 8 Przegląd Podatkowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  663. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  664. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  665. Moguillansky M O, Rotolo A, Simari G R, ‘Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation’ (2019) 129 Expert Systems and Applications; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  666. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  667. Molęda M, ’Cyber is the new black’, (2018) 6 Miesięcznik Ubezpieczeniowy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  668. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  669. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  670. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  671. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  672. Murphy J P, ′E-Discovery in Criminal Matters - Emerging Trends & the Influence of Civil Litigation Principles′ (2010) 11 Sedona Conference Journal; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  673. Myltseva V, ‘The legal nature and principles of the predictive justice’ (2019) 3 Recht der Osteuropäischen Staaten; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  674. Myrna G, ‘Juzgado sin papel, un paso más de la justicia electrónica’ (2018) 12, 41 Revista Ius; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  675. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  676. Nakamoto S, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System ‘ (31 October 2008) <https:// nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/> accessed 1 December 2020; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  677. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  678. Nastri N, ‘Registri sussidiari, Blockchain: #Notaio oltre la lezione di Carnelutti’ (2017) 4 Notariato; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  679. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  680. Nemitz P, ‘Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence’ (2018) 2133 Royal Society Publishing; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  681. Neves Jr. P C, ‘Judiciário 5.0’ (Blucher, 2020); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  682. Newell A and Simon H A, Human Problem Solving (Prentice Hall 1972); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  683. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  684. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  685. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  686. Nissan E, Computer Applications for Handling Legal Evidence, Police Investigation and Case Argumentation (Springer 2012); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  687. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  688. Nutter P W, 'Machine learning evidence: admissibility and weight.' 21 (2018) U. Pa. J. Const. L.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  689. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  690. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  691. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  692. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  693. Omlor S, ‘The CISG and libra: monetary revolution for international commercial transactions?’ (2020) 3(1) Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  694. Omni Legal, ‘Artificial Intelligence Won’t Replace Lawyers—It Will Free Them’ (Law Technology Today 27 February 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  695. Oñate S and Haissiner M, ‘Tribunales digitales y jueces máquina’ (2020) El mundo del abogado; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  696. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  697. Opiłek P, ’Kryptowaluty jako przedmiot zabezpieczenia i poręczenia majątkowego’ (2017) 6 Prokuratura i Prawo; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  698. Oskamp A, Tragter M and Groendijk C, ‘AI and Lain: What about the Future?’ (1995) 3 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  699. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  700. Palazzo M, ‘Informatica e diritto. Un dialogo necessario’ in (2019) 5 Notariato; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  701. Paliwala A (ed), A history of legal informatics (Series 9 LEFIS, Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza 2010); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  702. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  703. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  704. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  705. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  706. Partyk A, ‘Legitim 2.0., czyli o robocie przyszłości… rozstrzygającym spory zachowkowe‘ (2019) 2(25) Studia Prawnicze; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  707. Paschke A, Digitale Gerichtsöffentlichkeit (Duncker & Humblot, 2018); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  708. Pasquale F, ′A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation′ (2019) 87, 3 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  709. Pasquale F, ′A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation′ (2019) 87, 1 Geo. Wash. L.aw Rev.; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  710. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  711. Pavčnik M, ‘Why Discuss Gaps in the Law?’ (1996) 9/1 Ratio Juris; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  712. Pecyna M, Behan A, ‘Smart contracts — nowa technologia prawa umów? ’ (2020) 3 Transformacje prawa prywatnego; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  713. Peczenik A, On Law and Reason (Springer 2008); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  714. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  715. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (University of Notre Dame Press 1971); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  716. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  717. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  718. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  719. Petzel J, Informatyka prawnicza. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki (LIBER 1999); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  720. Petzel J, Systemy wyszukiwania informacji prawnej (Wolters Kluwer 2017); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  721. Philipps L and Sartor G, ′Introduction: from legal theories to neural networks and fuzzy reasoning′ (1999) 7 Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  722. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  723. Polański P P, (C. H. Beck LegalTech Forum conference, Warszawa, 16-17 June 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  724. Polański P P, Customary law of the Internet (1st edn, T.M.C. Asser Press 2007); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  725. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  726. Polański P P, (ed.), Ustawa o dostępności cyfrowej. Komentarz (1st edn, C.H.Beck 2021); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  727. Pollock J L, ‘Defeasible Reasoning’ (1987) 11 Cognitive Science; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  728. Poullet Y and Jacquemin H, ‘Blockchain: une révolution pour e droit?’ (2018) 6748 Journal des tribunaux; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  729. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  730. Prakken H, ‘An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments’ (2010) 1(2) Argument and Computation; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  731. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  732. Prakken H, Sartor G, ‘Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game’ (1998) 6(2-4) Artificial Intelligence and Law; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  733. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  734. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  735. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  736. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  737. Pyrrho Investments Limited v MWB Property Limited [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch); Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834
  738. Raczyńska M, `Modele dojrzałości procesowej organizacji` (2017) XLIV 2 Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Zarządzanie, 61; Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748922834

Similar publications

from the keywords "DSGVO", "Datenschutz", "Digitalisierung"
Cover of book: Öffnungsklauseln in der DSGVO und nationale Verwirklichung im BDSG
Monograph No access
Martin Weiß
Öffnungsklauseln in der DSGVO und nationale Verwirklichung im BDSG
Cover of book: Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz
Monograph No access
Paul Vogel
Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz
Cover of book: Internet and New Technologies Law
Edited Book Full access
Dariusz Szostek, Mariusz Załucki
Internet and New Technologies Law
Cover of book: Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector
Monograph Full access
Giorgia Bincoletto
Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector
Cover of book: Datenmacht
Monograph No access
Simon Deuring
Datenmacht

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 your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex