Three Laws Blog: Law and Artificial Intelligence

Campagnolo, van Haernen, Ravitharan, and Murray on Artificial Intelligence's Impact on Legal Journals

Yan Campagnolo, Leonie van Haernen, Shaarini Ravitharan, and Emma Murray, all of the University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, have published Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Legal Journals as Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2025-04. Here is the abstract.

This report provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on legal journals, including the Ottawa Law Review (OLR). Throughout the publication lifecycle of a given piece, AI tools may play a pivotal role in enhancing the editorial and publishing processes. Similarly, authors submitting to legal journals may also leverage AI tools for purposes that range from improving readability to generating content. While the potential benefits are significant, the use of such tools raises various issues pertaining to the accuracy and quality of publications, as well as broader ethical and legal issues. Journals—both legal and non-legal—have responded to these opportunities and challenges at different speeds and in different ways. Some journals in non-legal disciplines have developed extensive AI policies, while the majority of legal journals—particularly in Canada—appear to be falling behind in this regard. This report contains several recommendations that will empower the OLR to embrace the transformative potential of AI responsibly while maintaining its commitment to safeguarding privacy, intellectual property, and scholarly rigour. Central to this endeavour is the adoption of three AI policies: one covering the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in submissions, another addressing AI usage in the peer review process, and a final one relating to the editorial team. This report ultimately aspires to ensure the OLR upholds its reputation as a reliable contributor to legal scholarship by guiding the organization through this new technological revolution.

Download the report from SSRN at the link.

Campagnolo, van Haernen, Ravitharan, and Murray on Artificial Intelligence's Impact on Legal Journals

Yan Campagnolo, Leonie van Haernen, Shaarini Ravitharan, and Emma Murray, all of the University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, have published Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Legal Journals as Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2025-04. Here is the abstract.

This report provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on legal journals, including the Ottawa Law Review (OLR). Throughout the publication lifecycle of a given piece, AI tools may play a pivotal role in enhancing the editorial and publishing processes. Similarly, authors submitting to legal journals may also leverage AI tools for purposes that range from improving readability to generating content. While the potential benefits are significant, the use of such tools raises various issues pertaining to the accuracy and quality of publications, as well as broader ethical and legal issues. Journals—both legal and non-legal—have responded to these opportunities and challenges at different speeds and in different ways. Some journals in non-legal disciplines have developed extensive AI policies, while the majority of legal journals—particularly in Canada—appear to be falling behind in this regard. This report contains several recommendations that will empower the OLR to embrace the transformative potential of AI responsibly while maintaining its commitment to safeguarding privacy, intellectual property, and scholarly rigour. Central to this endeavour is the adoption of three AI policies: one covering the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in submissions, another addressing AI usage in the peer review process, and a final one relating to the editorial team. This report ultimately aspires to ensure the OLR upholds its reputation as a reliable contributor to legal scholarship by guiding the organization through this new technological revolution.

Download the report from SSRN at the link.

Galler and Soled on AI and the Regulation of Tax Preparers

Linda Galler, Hofstra University School of Law, and Jay A. Soled, Rutgers University, are publishing AI and the Regulation of Tax Preparers as a Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Tax return preparers play a pivotal role for millions of taxpayers, and their number ranges in the hundreds of thousands. Despite preparers’ importance in the tax return submission process and their numerical size, they are largely unregulated. Because of this lack of oversight, a significant number of tax return preparers put their own financial interests and those of their clients ahead of the government’s financial interests. In the past, there have been calls for increased regulatory oversight to keep wayward practitioners’ actions in check. Therefore, a decade and a half ago, Congress, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, mandated that every paid tax return preparer secure a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) and affix it to the face of the tax returns that they prepare. Enter artificial intelligence (AI)—with its unparalleled ability to process and analyze an immense amount of data—combined with electronic tax return filings. With immediate access to PTINs and other information or characteristics associated with such returns, AI is ideally situated to identify tax return preparers who are derelict in their professional duties. Once identified, the IRS can hold these practitioners accountable for their mistakes and misdeeds. Unlike the prior academic papers that have championed regulatory oversight well beyond PTIN registration (e.g., mandatory annual education courses and exams), this analysis stands apart. Instead, it recognizes AI’s power and what it can accomplish if properly brought to bear to the problem of unregulated tax return preparers. Seizing this opportunity would most likely result in increased tax compliance, the collection of billions more in revenue without raising taxes, and a narrowing of the tax gap (i.e., the difference between what taxpayers pay in tax and what they owe). Furthermore, the foregoing may be accomplished without adding needless administrative burdens.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Daly on Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Tribunals

Paul Daly, University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, has published Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Tribunals. Here is the abstract.

In this paper, I will examine the implications of artificial intelligence for administrative tribunals. I will briefly set the scene in Part I by describing the potential advantages and disadvantages of advanced technology for administrative tribunals. Although I have reservations about integrating AI into the daily operations of public administration, administrative tribunals may be a uniquely favoured site for technological experimentation. Since their origins in the 19th century the raison d’etre of administrative tribunals has been more efficient and effective decision-making. The very thing that artificial intelligence promises – efficiency and effectiveness – is exactly that which administrative tribunals have long primarily been designed to achieve. This is not to suggest, however, that administrative tribunals should move blindly forward and embrace AI in all shapes and forms. In Part I, I also suggest that careful, contextual analysis is required before using AI and lay out several typologies that are helpful in conducting the necessary analysis. In Part II, I then discuss the ways in which administrative tribunals can use AI: communicating with the public and enhancing the accessibility of their websites; assigning decisions more effectively to members of the tribunal; triaging files to ensure decisions are made as quickly as possible; drafting decisions; and, conceivably, making decisions. These use cases are set out in increasing order of audacity. Machines making websites more usable for individuals is one thing, making life-defining decisions about individual rights and obligations quite another. In the end, though, I will argue that there is a broad range of potential uses for AI in administrative tribunals.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Ye, Luceri, and Ferrara on Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X Approaching the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

Jinyi Ye, Luca Luceri, and emilio Ferrara, all of the University of Southern California, have published Auditing Political Exposure Bias: Algorithmic Amplification on Twitter/X Approaching the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Here is the abstract.

Approximately 50% of tweets in X's user timelines are personalized recommendations from accounts they do not follow. This raises a critical question: what political content are users exposed to beyond their established networks, and how might this influence democratic discourse online? Due to the black-box nature and constant evolution of social media algorithms, much remains unknown about this aspect of users' content exposure, particularly as it pertains to potential biases in algorithmic curation. Prior research has shown that certain political groups and media sources are amplified within users' in-network tweets. However, the extent to which this amplification affects out-of-network recommendations remains unclear. As the 2024 U.S. Election approaches, addressing this question is essential for understanding the influence of algorithms on online political content consumption and its potential impact on users' perspectives. In this paper, we conduct a three-week audit of X's algorithmic content recommendations using a set of 120 sock-puppet monitoring accounts that capture tweets in their personalized "For You" timelines. Our objective is to quantify out-of-network content exposure for right-and left-leaning user profiles and to assess any potential biases in political exposure. Our findings indicate that X's algorithm skews exposure toward a few high-popularity accounts across all users, with rightleaning users experiencing the highest level of exposure inequality. Both left-and right-leaning users encounter amplified exposure to accounts aligned with their own political views and reduced exposure to opposing viewpoints. Additionally, we observe a right-leaning bias in exposure for new accounts within their default timelines. We hope this empirical study promotes discussion on the transparency and accountability of social media algorithms, contributing to critical issues on safeguarding election integrity and fostering a more informed digital public sphere.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Hiebaum on Some Preliminary Considerations on Legal Personhood for Nonhuman and Future Entities @c_hiebaum @UniGraz

Christian Hiebaum, University of Graz, has published Some Preliminary Considerations on Legal Personhood for Nonhuman and Future Entities as Graz Law Working Paper No. 09-2024. Here is the abstract.

Defining and allocating legal rights, and, by implication, assigning legal personhood, is one way to protect nonhuman entities (such as animals, plants, and ecosystems) and the interests of future people. This paper aims to clarify some basic issues underlying legal and legal policy debates about such protections. I shall begin with a few remarks on what legal personhood is (including a brief comparison with similar moral notions), and on two different goals when dealing with it. The bulk of the paper is devoted to three questions concerning the legal personhood of nonhuman and not yet existing entities: the analytical question, the legal question, and the legal policy question. At the end, I will briefly consider the role law may or may not play in determining moral status, rather than exploring the significance of moral status for legal and legal policy analysis.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Brennan on Proposals for the Rights and Liabilities of Artificial Intelligence through Electronic Personhood: Conscious Machines, Hermit Crabs, and the Distant Past

Dan Brennan has published Proposals for the Rights and Liabilities of Artificial Intelligence through Electronic Personhood: Conscious Machines, Hermit Crabs, and the Distant Past. Here is the abstract.

Examines the complexities of contemporary AI regulation, chiefly in the technology's unique capacity for autonomous decision making and independent learning. The paper highlights the potential of granting legal personhood to sophisticated AI systems as an alternative to current regulatory schemes. Three categories of personhood are considered: the ontological model, corporate frameworks, and the ancient Roman concept of peculium. Fundamentally, each model allows AI to hold property and be responsible for its actions, notably by indemnifying any legal persons it may harm. That said, each model has unique benefits and limitations which are discussed in turn. Chapter 6 concludes that neither one of these models can be exclusively relied upon. Instead, a new form of 'electronic personhood' should adopt elements from all the regulatory methods discussed herein, including methods of current regulation and the EU's AI Act.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Deeks on Delegating War Initiation to Machines @UVALaw @AustJIA

Ashley Deeks, University of Virginia School of Law, has published Delegating War Initiation to Machines at 78 Australian Journal of International Affairs 148 (2024). Here is the abstract.

The use of autonomy to initiate force, which states may begin to view as necessary to protect against hypersonic attacks and other forms of "hyperwar," may effectively constitute a delegation of war-initiation decision making to a machine. Yet legal questions about whether and when the leader of a country may delegate their decision making to others - and normative questions about whether he should do so - can be complicated. Any state that intends to introduce significant autonomy into such systems should assess whether and how the use of autonomy in war initiation comports with its domestic laws and norms that govern the delegation of the use of force.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Haneman on The Law of Digital Resurrection @TaxLawProf @BCLawReview @CreightonLaw

Victoria J. Haneman, Creighton University School of Law, is publishing The Law of Digital Resurrection in the B. C. L. Rev. (2025). Here is the abstract.

The digital right to be dead has yet to be recognized as an important legal right. Artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and nanotechnology have progressed to the point that personal data can be used to resurrect the deceased in digital form with appearance, voice, emotion, and memory recreated to allow interaction with a digital app, chat bot, or avatar that may be indistinguishable from that with a living person. Users may now have a completely immersive experience simply by loading the personal data of the deceased into a neural network to create a chatbot that inherits features and idiosyncrasies of the deceased and dynamically learns with increased communication. There is no legal or regulatory landscape against which to estate plan to protect those who would avoid digital resurrection, and few privacy rights for the deceased. This is an intersection of death, technology, and privacy law that has remained relatively ignored until recently. This Article is the first to respect death as an important and distinguishing part of the conversation about regulating digital resurrection. Death has long had a strained relationship with the law, giving rise to dramatically different needs and idiosyncratic legal rules. The law of the dead reflects the careful balance between the power of the state and an individual's wishes, and it may be the only doctrinal space in which we legally protect remembrance. This Article frames the importance of almost half of a millennium of policy undergirding the law of the deceased, and proposes a paradigm focused upon a right of deletion for the deceased over source material (data), rather than testamentary control over the outcome (digital resurrection), with the suggestion that existing protections are likely sufficient to protect against unauthorized commercial resurrections.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.