Legal technology

Short description: Technology and software to provide legal services

Template:Law sidebarLegal technology, also known as legal tech, refers to the use of technology and software to provide legal services and support the legal industry.[1][2] Legal technology encompasses the use of traditional software architecture and web technologies, such as searchable databases of case law and other legal authority,[3] as well as machine learning technologies, such as those used to automatically search documents for purposes of due diligence or discovery.[4]: 1329 Work on making contracts more easy to use involve aspects of user experience design,[5]: 69 and artificial intelligence.[6] Alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) increasingly use legal technology to deliver transactional legal work at scale, helping in-house legal teams improve service delivery, streamline operations, and redirect capacity to higher-value tasks.[7]

## Contents

* 1 Definitions
* 2 History
* 3 Applications
* 3.1 Case law databases
* 3.2 Document automation
* 4 Cyberjustice
* 5 Approaches
* 6 Industry context
* 7 Societal issues
* 8 Key areas
* 9 References

## Definitions

Legal technology traditionally referred to the application of technology and software to help individual lawyers, law firms, medium and large scale businesses with practice management, document automation, document storage, billing, accounting and electronic discovery.[8][9]: 83

## History

From the 1970s through to the 1990s there were several academic attempts to formalize legal reasoning, a knowledge representation task.[4]: 1327 The International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL) has been held since 1987[4]: 1327 The first commercially available legal AI system was an expert system released in 1988 by the University of Oxford to tell users if a new piece of legislation, the latent damage act applied to them.[10]: 132 Since 2000, there have been more attempts to make legal tasks easier using machine learning approaches rather than knowledge representation.[4]: 1328 In the mid 2000s so-called predictive coding became possible for use in the discovery process of litigation. These predictive coding tools helped lawyers predict which documents were relevant or irrelevant for the litigation, after having been trained on a subset of documents.[4]: 1329

In 1975 in the US, the Federal Judicial Center started the COURTRAN project for the electronic recording of court records. This was initially used for criminal cases, but later was adapted for managing civil cases. COURTRAN was replaced by the Integrated Case Management System in the mid 1980s.[11] The Legal Information Institute was set up in 1992, at Cornell University with the aim of making law more accessible,[12] and began providing access to US supreme court decisions.[13] Development of the PACER to nationwide access to court records, began in 1990 and by the mid 1990s, 180 federal courts were offering fee based access to court records via Dial-up Internet access.[14]: 860 The E-Government Act of 2002 limited the fees to only the extent necessary.[14]: 863 The Open Courts Act of 2020 set out a plan to make PACER free to use by 2025.[15]

Some legal technology seek to provide consumers with access to online software that reduces or eliminates the need to consult a lawyer, or by connecting people with lawyers more efficiently.[16] For example, companies have emerged to assist with air passenger compensation claims under the EU's Flight Compensation Regulation without the need for a lawyer.[17]

## Applications

### Case law databases

Use of tools to aid with legal research is very common within the legal field. Commercial companies such as Practical Law Company, LexisNexis, and Reuters offer services where a lawyer can pay to search case law. In the early 1990s the Cornell Legal Information Institute (ILL) started to provide free of charge full text access to US Supreme Court judgements. A database of Canadian Supreme Court decisions was hosted under the name LexUM. In Australia the AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute) was founded in 1995. It was the first free case law database to achieve national coverage and now comprises over 200 databases with case law from virtually all courts and tribunals. The British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) was established in 1999. These initiatives demonstrated the strong demand for free public access to case law to aid legal research and the Free Access to Law Movement was formally established in 2002.[18] In the US the Caselaw Access Project, run by Harvard Law School, had by 2018 scanned in excess of 40 million legal documents relating to reported US state and federal cases. US case law is made accessible free of charge and via an application programming interface (API).[19] Several computational legal corpora have also been published in other jurisdictions including the European Court of Human Rights,[20] Germany,[21] Korea,[22] Australia,[23] Canada,[24] and the UK,[25] as well as multi-national datasets such as MultiLegalPile[26] and LexFiles.[27]

### Document automation

Legal technology companies such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer provide consumers and small businesses with document automation services. Document drafting is rules-based legal work and drafts of legal documents, such as contracts and the documents required for company formation, can be reliably generated through an interactive website.[28] LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer can assemble the full range of legal documents required in the United States to be filed in court for official record or court proceedings.[29] Document automation service assemble legal documents out of templates with fill-in-blanks. The legal document is interactively assembled via a question and answer program, where the user is responding to queries. Law firms have access to a range of document automation services on a subscription basis. Lawyers can automate their own templates or pay to access prefabricated templates.[30] Since the 1970s more than 65 legal document automation services have been commercially available to lawyers. Well established document automation services for lawyers include ContractExpress and HotDocs.[31]

Template based document automation works best for contracts that use boilerplate clause, model contracts or standard clauses. The integration of predictive analytics allows for predictive contracting, where the drafter is provided with statistical information about the likelihood that a nonstandard clause will be subject to litigation or adverse judicial interpretation. Contract analytics services provided by LexPredict and Bloomberg L.P. use natural language processing (NLP) tools to find unique clauses in contracts[32] by identifying statistical patterns within language syntax.[33]

There have been attempts to improve the design of contracts, which have traditionally been seen as documents by lawyers for lawyers. Suggested improvements to the design of contracts have considered how contracts could convey more information visually, more directly address business needs, and improve relationships between the parties of a contract.[5]: 69 Scholars have suggested the use of so-called self-executing contracts, where the terms of the contract are automatically updated by a computer using predefined rules. A further step would be the generation of a machine-readable representation of the contract that could be used in other automated processes such as contract lifecycle management.[5]: 74 Recent commentary in the legal AI field has emphasized that the success of agentic systems in contract review depends less on autonomy and more on producing verifiable, trustworthy outputs that legal teams can rely on.[34] Recent commentary has also examined the emergence of generative AI tools designed for non-attorney users, which aim to assist with the preparation of standardized legal documents and preliminary legal materials without direct attorney involvement.[35]

## Cyberjustice

Main article: Social:Cyberjustice

The judiciary have expressed interest in the potential for electronics filing to reduce costs and increase efficiency[36]: 18 and online alternative dispute resolution as a means to reduce costs to claimants increasing access to justice.[37][36]: 19 Technological approaches are being used to provide guidance for sentencing and pretrial detention in some courts, including machine-learning based solutions which have been criticized for potential racial bias issues.[38]: 10 [39] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been introduced to the market by the big three legal research providers LexisNexis, Westlaw, and Bloomberg Law. The Lex Machina estimates a judges' likelihood of granting or denying a motion.[40] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been criticized for potentially harming access to justice, as would-be litigants with claims that are judged too novel or less viable may be denied legal representation.[41]

## Approaches

Artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural language processing are being applied to machine learning tasks particularly those related to search, such as due diligence and discovery in litigation cases.[9]: 133

Knowledge graphs are being applied to assist in the creation, management, and analysis of smart contracts.

Rule-based expert system have been used for the purposes knowledge representation and querying legal knowledge, one such example being TurboTax.[4]: 1317 These approaches are studied in Legal informatics.

## Industry context

Although the legal industry was traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, the present legal environment requires greater adaptation to and incorporation of technology,[6] with the American Bar Association voting in August 2012 to amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to require lawyers to keep abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology",[42][43] and in late 2019, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada adopted a similar amendment to the Model Code of Professional Conduct.[44] The saturation of the market is leading many lawyers to look for cutting-edge ways to compete.[16] The exponential growth in the volume of documents (mostly email) that must be reviewed for litigation cases has greatly accelerated the adoption of technology used in eDiscovery, with elements of machine language and artificial intelligence being incorporated and cloud-based services being adopted by law firms.[45]

Stanford Law School has started CodeX, the Center for Legal Informatics, an interdisciplinary research center, which also incubates companies started by law students and computer scientists. Some companies that have come out of the program include Lex Machina and Legal.io.[46]

Funding for legal technology companies surged 44% year-over-year to about $3.56 billion in the first half of 2025.[47]

## Societal issues

Many critics have voiced concerns about the risk of bias in the decisions made by models trained using machine learning approaches such as sentencing decisions, arguing that a model could learn the bias in existing decisions.[4]: 1335 Others have voiced concerns about the explainable of the decisions made by machine learning models arguing that such models can be a black box. There are concerns about the possibility that models could be viewed as objective and infalliable when they are not.[4]: 1336

There is interest in the use of legal technology to increase access to justice. Programs have attempted to use legal technology to improve access to justice by improving processes, automating access to legal information and advice, and improving user interaction.[48]

## Key areas

Traditional areas of Legal Tech include:

* Contract Management
* Matter and Case Management
* Accounting
* Billing
* Document automation
* Document storage
* Electronic discovery
* Enterprise legal management
* Legal research
* Practice management
* Case management
* E-Signature platform
* Service of Process

More recent areas of growth in Legal Tech focus on:

* Providing tools or a marketplace to connect clients with lawyers
* Client relationship management (CRM) tools
* Providing tools for consumers and businesses to complete legal matters by themselves, obviating the need for a lawyer
* Data and contract analytics
* Law practice optimization
* Use of legally binding digital signature, which helps verify the digital identity of each signer, maintains the chain of custody for the documents and can provide audit trails
* Automation of legal writing or other substantive aspects of legal practice
* Machine readable contracts[49]
* Platforms for succession planning i.e. Will writing, via online applications
* Providing tools to assist with immigration document preparation in lieu of hiring a lawyer.[50][51]

## References

1. ↑ Whalen, Ryan (15 April 2022). "Defining legal technology and its implications". International Journal of Law and Information Technology 30 (1): 47–67. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eaac005.
2. ↑ Mania, Karolina (June 2023). "Legal Technology: Assessment of the Legal Tech Industry's Potential". Journal of the Knowledge Economy 14 (2): 595–619. doi:10.1007/s13132-022-00924-z.
3. ↑ "AustLII – User Tools: Sino Free Text Search Engine". https://www.austlii.edu.au/techlib/software/sino/.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Surden, Harry (1 June 2019). "Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview". Georgia State University Law Review 35 (4). https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol35/iss4/8/.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Marcelo Corrales, ed (2019). Legal tech, smart contracts and Blockchain. Singapore. ISBN 978-981-13-6086-2. OCLC 1084757003.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Fuentes, Lourdes M.. "Lessons from Legal Research's Past for the GenAI-Powered Legal Technology of Tomorrow" (in en). American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-technology-today/2024/lessons-from-legal-researchs-past-for-the-genai-powered-legal-technology-of-tomorrow/.
7. ↑ "How CrowdStrike’s Use of Factor Shifted Legal Team Mindset". https://www.legaldive.com/news/crowdstrike-cybersecurity-factor-alsp-alternative-legal-services-provider-acc-value-champion/649063/.
8. ↑ Kluttz, Daniel N.; Mulligan, Deirdre K (2019). "Automated decision support technologies and the legal profession". Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343 (3): 853-890.
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Susanne Chishti, ed (2020). The legaltech book: the legal technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and FinTech visionaries. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-119-70806-3. OCLC 1154093755.
10. ↑ Susskind, Daniel; Susskind, Richard (June 2018). "The Future of the Professions". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 162 (2): 125–138. ProQuest 2157781264.
11. ↑ Owen, Forrester J (1995). "History of the Federal Judiciary's Automation Program, The L. Ralph Mecham & Federal Courts Administration: A Decade of Innovation and Progress". American University Law Review. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=aulr.
12. ↑ "LII:Overview". https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii.html.
13. ↑ St. Amant, Kirk (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. IGI Global. p. 375. ISBN 978-1-59140-999-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=75KT6GdcWbYC&pg=PA375.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Martin, Peter W. (2008). "Online Access to Court Records – From Documents to Data, Particulars to Patterns". Villanova Law Review 53: 855. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vllalr53&id=867&div=&collection=.
15. ↑ Lee, Timothy B. (10 December 2020). "US House passes bill to tear down judiciary's paywall" (in en-us). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/us-house-passes-bill-to-tear-down-judiciarys-paywall/.
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Rubin, Basha (6 December 2014). "Legal Tech Startups Have A Short History And A Bright Future". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/06/legal-tech-startups-have-a-short-history-and-a-bright-future/.
17. ↑ Christine Riefa; Severine Saintier (2020). Vulnerable Consumers and the Law: Consumer Protection and Access to Justice. Taylor & Francis. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-000-20970-9.
18. ↑ Software Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. 2009. p. 2805. ISBN 978-1-60566-061-5.
19. ↑ Dwight Steward; Roberto Cavazos (2019). Big Data Analytics in U.S. Courts. Springer International Publishing. p. 77. ISBN 978-3-030-31780-5.
20. ↑ Poudyal, Prakash; Savelka, Jaromir; Ieven, Aagje; Moens, Marie Francine; Goncalves, Teresa; Quaresma, Paulo (December 2020). "ECHR: Legal Corpus for Argument Mining". Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 67–75. https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.8.
21. ↑ Leitner, Elena; Rehm, Georg; Moreno-Schneider, Julian (May 2020). "A Dataset of German Legal Documents for Named Entity Recognition". Marseille, France: European Language Resources Association. pp. 4478–4485. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.551.
22. ↑ Hwang, Wonseok; Lee, Dongjun; Cho, Kyoungyeon; Lee, Hanuhl; Seo, Minjoon (December 2022). "A Multi-Task Benchmark for Korean Legal Language Understanding and Judgement Prediction". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: 32537–32551. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/d15abd14d5894eebd185b756541d420e-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.html.
23. ↑ Butler, Umar (2024). "Open Australian Legal Corpus". Hugging Face. doi:10.57967/hf/1771. https://huggingface.co/datasets/umarbutler/open-australian-legal-corpus.
24. ↑ Rehaag, Sean; Wallace, Simon (2025). "A2AJ Canadian Legal Data". https://github.com/a2aj-ca/canadian-legal-data.
25. ↑ Östling, Andreas; Sargeant, Holli; Xie, Huiyuan; Bull, Ludwig; Terenin, Alexander; Jonsson, Leif; Magnusson, Måns; Steffek, Felix (2023). "The Cambridge Law Corpus: A Dataset for Legal AI Research". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: 41355–41385. doi:10.17863/cam.107551. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3666122.3667915.
26. ↑ Niklaus, Joel; Matoshi, Veton; Stürmer, Matthias; Chalkidis, Ilias; Ho, Daniel E. (2024). "MultiLegalPile: A 689GB Multilingual Legal Corpus". arXiv:2306.02069 [cs.CL].
27. ↑ Chalkidis, Ilias; Garneau, Nicolas; Goanta, Catalina; Katz, Daniel Martin; Søgaard, Anders (2023). "LeXFiles and LegalLAMA: Facilitating English Multinational Legal Language Model Development". arXiv:2305.07507 [cs.CL].
28. ↑ David Freeman Engstrom (2023). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6.
29. ↑ David Freeman Engstrom (2023). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6.
30. ↑ Michael Legg; Felicity Bell (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 179. ISBN 978-1-5099-3183-5.
31. ↑ Legal Informatics. Cambridge University Press. 2021. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-107-14272-5.
32. ↑ Michael Legg; Felicity Bell (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-5099-3183-5.
33. ↑ Legal Informatics. Cambridge University Press. 2021. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-107-14272-5.
34. ↑ Hitesh Talwar (2025-07-10). "Stop Debating Agentic AI’s Definition. Start Demanding Results". https://news.bloomberglaw.com/artificial-intelligence/stop-debating-agentic-ais-definition-start-demanding-results.
35. ↑ ""Generative AI Tools for Non-Attorney Legal Document Preparation"". AI Inventor Blog. https://idea2patentai.com/articles/generative-ai-legal-tools-non-attorneys.
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Neuberger, David (2016). "British Irish Commercial Bar Association Law Forum: Technology and the Law. Closing Keynote Address". https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-160421.pdf.
37. ↑ Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group. ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR LOW VALUE CIVIL CLAIMS. Civil Justice Council.
38. ↑ Kehl, Danielle Leah; Kessler, Samuel Ari (2017). "Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing". http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33746041.
39. ↑ Thomas, C.; Nunez, A. (2022). "Automating Judicial Discretion: How Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Pretrial Adjudications Violate Equal Protection Rights on the Basis of Race" (in en). Law & Inequality 40 (2): 371–407. doi:10.24926/25730037.649. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1680&context=lawineq.
40. ↑ David Freeman Engstrom (2023). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6.
41. ↑ David Freeman Engstrom (2023). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6.
42. ↑ "Client-Lawyer Relationship, Rule 1.1 Competence – Comment". American Bar Association. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1.html.
43. ↑ Ambrogi, Robert. "The Cloud Has Landed: 10 Legal Tech Innovations and What They Mean". http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=88&Issue=4&ArticleID=23997.
44. ↑ "Interactive Model Code of Professional Conduct". https://flsc.ca/interactivecode/.
45. ↑ James N Dertouzos, Nicholas M Pace and Robert H Anderson, The Legal And Economic Implications Of Electronic Discovery (Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 2008) 3; Pavan Mediratta, "Using Legal Data Analytics To Gain A Competitive Advantage", LAW.COM (Webpage, 2017) <https://www.law.com/native/?mvi=80e16694159446d0ae29f6c93e95806c&slreturn=20200028224509>.
46. ↑ Bues, Micha-Manuel (16 March 2016). "Micha-Manuel Bues Interviews CodeX Executive Director Roland Vogl" (in en). https://law.stanford.edu/2016/03/16/micha-manuel-bues-interviews-roland-vogl/.
47. ↑ "Legal Tech Funding Soars As AI Upstarts Take Over - Law360 Pulse" (in en). https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2363506/legal-tech-funding-soars-as-ai-upstarts-take-over.
48. ↑ "Technology, Access to Justice and the Rule of Law". https://events.lawsociety.org.uk/uploads/files/2f5acdb0-4227-455d-9d55-ec3e6254a5da.pdf.
49. ↑ "Legal Schema and beyond – Legislate" (in en). https://www.legislate.tech/post/legal-schema-and-beyond.
50. ↑ Hobbs, Stephen (14 December 2015). "Simplifying idea | Colorado Springs Gazette, News". http://gazette.com/simplifying-idea/article/1565568.
51. ↑ Ho, Catherine. "FileRight Aims to Help with Immigration". https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-37565064.html.

* v
* t
* e

Law

Core subjects|

* Administrative law
* Civil law
* Constitutional law
* Contract
* Criminal law
* Deed
* Equity
* Evidence
* International law
* Law of obligations
* Procedure
* Civil
* Criminal
* Property law
* Public law
* Restitution
* Statutory law
* Tort

Note: This topic belongs to "Law" portal

Other subjects|

* Agricultural law
* Aviation law
* Banking law
* Bankruptcy
* Commercial law
* Competition law
* Conflict of laws
* Construction law
* Consumer protection
* Corporate law
* Cyberlaw
* Election law
* Energy law
* Entertainment law
* Environmental law
* Family law
* Financial law
* Financial regulation
* Health law
* History of the legal profession
* History of the American legal profession
* Immigration law
* Intellectual property
* International criminal law
* International human rights
* International slavery laws
* Jurimetrics
* {{{sp}}}|us||u}}r
* Law of war
* Legal archaeology
* Legal fiction
* Maritime law
* Media law
* Military law
* Probate
* Estate
* Will and testament
* Product liability
* Public international law
* Space law
* Sports law
* Tax law
* Transport law
* Trust law
* Women in law

Sources of law|

* Charter
* Code
* Constitution
* Custom
* Divine right
* Divine law
* Human rights
* Natural law
* Natural and legal rights
* Case law
* Precedent

Law making|

* Ballot measure
* Codification
* Decree
* Edict
* Executive order
* Proclamation
* Legislation
* Delegated legislation
* General executory decree
* Regulation
* Rulemaking
* Promulgation
* Repeal
* Treaty
* Concordat
* Statutory law
* Statute
* Act of Parliament
* Act of Congress (US)

Legal systems|

* Civil law
* Common law
* Chinese law
* Legal pluralism
* Religious law
* Canon law
* Hindu law
* Jain law
* Jewish law
* Sharia
* Roman law
* Socialist law
* Statutory law
* Xeer
* Yassa

Legal theory|

* Contract theory
* Critical legal studies
* Comparative law
* Feminist
* Fundamental theory of canon law
* Law and economics
* Legal formalism
* History
* International legal theory
* Principle of legality
* Rule of law
* Sociology

Jurisprudence|

* Adjudication
* Administration of justice
* Criminal justice
* Court-martial
* Dispute resolution
* Fiqh
* Lawsuit/Litigation
* Legal opinion
* Legal remedy
* Judge
* Justice of the peace
* Magistrate
* Judgment
* Judicial review
* Jurisdiction
* Jury
* Justice
* Practice of law
* Attorney
* Barrister
* Counsel
* Lawyer
* Legal representation
* Prosecutor
* Solicitor
* Question of fact
* Question of law
* Trial
* Trial advocacy
* Trier of fact
* Verdict

Legal institutions|

* Bureaucracy
* The bar
* The bench
* Civil society
* Court
* Election commission
* Executive
* Judiciary
* Law enforcement
* Legal education
* Law school
* Legislature
* Military
* Police
* Political party
* Tribunal

* Category
* Index
* Outline

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal technology. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Engineering:Legal_technology&oldid=4235961"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template