Rebecca Williams’s research while affiliated with University of Oxford and other places

It is well known that artificial intelligence, especially machine learning, has the potential for hugely beneficial impacts on all areas of life, but also carries with it dangers such as lack of transparency, over-rigidity of decision-making, negative feedback loops and unreasonable inferences. Such dangers also have the potential to be scaled across a whole area of decisions. There is, therefore, an increasing sense that we need greater accountability of algorithmic decision-making systems and it is argued here that public law and the grounds of judicial review are a ready-made toolkit specifically designed to render decision-makers accountable and to make precisely the kinds of trade-offs we will need to make between effectiveness and efficiency on the one hand and fairness on the other. These tools can therefore provide a blueprint as we work out how to govern ADM and render it accountable, even in a private context. This can take place by using the public law toolkit in interpreting existing legislation, informing future regulation and even through the exercise of a common law supervisory jurisdiction.

The increasing prevalence of algorithmic decision making (ADM) by public authorities raises a number of challenges for administrative law in the form of technical decisions about the necessary metrics for evaluating such systems, their opacity, the scalability of errors, their use of correlation as opposed to causation and so on. If administrative law is to provide the necessary guidance to enable optimal use of such systems, there are a number of ways in which it will need to become more nuanced and advanced. However, if it is able to rise to this challenge, administrative law has the potential not only to do useful work itself in controlling ADM, but also to support the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office and provide guidance on the interpretation of concepts such as ‘meaningful information’ and ‘proportionality’ within the General Data Protection Regulation.

Legal professionals increasingly rely on digital technologies when they provide legal services. The most advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) promise great advancements of legal services, but lawyers are traditionally not educated in the field of digital technology and thus cannot fully unlock the potential of such technologies in their practice. In this paper, we identify five distinct skills and knowledge gaps that prevent lawyers from implementing AI and digital technology in the provision of legal services and suggest concrete models for education and training in this area. Our findings and recommendations are based on a series of semi-structured interviews, design and delivery of an experimental course in ‘Law and Computer Science’, and an analysis of the empirical data in view of wider debates in the literature concerning legal education and 21st century skills.

Legal professionals increasingly rely on digital technologies when they provide legal services. The most advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) promise great advancements of legal services, but lawyers are traditionally not educated in the field of digital technology and thus cannot fully unlock the potential of such technologies in their practice. In this paper, we identify five distinct skills and knowledge gaps that prevent lawyers from implementing AI and digital technology in the provision of legal services and suggest concrete models for education and training in this area. Our findings and recommendations are based on a series of semi-structured interviews, design and delivery of an experimental course in ‘Law and Computer Science’, and an analysis of the empirical data in view of wider debates in the literature concerning legal education and 21st century skills.

Legal professionals increasingly rely on digital technologies when they provide legal services. The most advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) promise great advancements of legal services, but lawyers are traditionally not educated in the field of digital technology and thus cannot fully unlock the potential of such technologies in their practice. In this paper, we identify five distinct skills and knowledge gaps that prevent lawyers from implementing AI and digital technology in the provision of legal services and suggest concrete models for education and training in this area. Our findings and recommendations are based on a series of semi-structured interviews, design and delivery of an experimental course in 'Law and Computer Science', and an analysis of the empirical data in view of wider debates in the literature concerning legal education and 21 st century skills.