1)      Innovation in law offers a wide range of technology-based solutions that make the legal process faster and easier for both lawyers and clients.What do you think about how this innovation will affect the business and financial structures of law firms in the future?

 The triumph of technology and AI is evident to all of us as we live in a digital and data driven world whose peculiarities must be taken into account by law firms as well. Data-based administrative and economic models change the behavior, expectations and needs of people, companies and business environments. Obviously, we need to move closer to the customer as "one size fits all" is even less suitable. Also, the legal acts and policies of other regions may have relevance (GDPR, DMA, DSA) in case, say, Turkish lawyer wishes to consult a client who is doing business with EU memberstates. Understanding the rights and limitations of data use and digital technology becomes a primary concern, as they are main engines of today's economy. This means providing not just a norm-based solutions, but also a risk analysis which takes into account rapidly changing environments with sometimes no definitive answer to all legal questions. For example, in the field of IP, the focus shifts to sustainability to ensure that the licenses and patents would not only be achieved, but valid and protected in long run. Lawyers face a new challenge in the development and implementation of legal technologies. The current leading legal tech charts are led by companies offering services using artificial intelligence in the fields of cyber security, medicine, communication, contract automation, expert team building, claims for damages, intellectual property, consumer protection, privacy, the financial world and more. I believe that in the beginning of new era there will be higher competition and perhaps also a lower price for a customer. Building up and investing a competitive legal tech can become a challege for traditional law firms that are fully operating on the basis of billable hours. Also, law school graduate may not fancy to become another newbie to established law industry and rather choose to experiment independently in the format of legal tech start-up.

I believe that inevitable changes in the legal profession are led by changing market, society, and the client. In the long term, adaptive lawyers who understand that remaining competitive requires investment in digital education and technology will survive and be successful. An office using digital technologies is more attractive and offers a faster and cheaper service. Why? Because data analysis improves, i.e. analysis of the interaction of norms, analysis of co-occurrences. Routine activities are also automated (time planning, invoicing, communication with the client and necessary institutions, understanding of the usability of the data used). A potential customer will also receive an extremely fast response and offer of cooperation after the first contact.   The global legal technology market is expected to reach a value of 900 billion USD in 2025. In principle, this amount must be deducted from the turnover of traditional legal services. The modern client wants an advisor with an adapted and open attitude, not a conservatives from yesterday's world. We need to become more interdisciplinary and not be afraid of new technologies. I myself have been involved as the head of a legal working group in a large-scale nanotechnology project in order to map ethical and legal risks. 

 2)      Legal innovation aims to integrate legal professionals with artificial intelligence. Is this possible for any legal profession? What are the main problems that come up during the integration phase?

AI can used as a helping tool in every field of law. However, there are limitations: we do not expect the AI to make legal decisions but only draft them. Law is a living instrument and beside of legal norms, also other aspects should be taken into account. “No” for robojudges but “yes” for AI as a legal assistant! What are the problems in using tech in legal industry? The main one is related to conservatism of lawyers. Can be presumed that old-school law faculties continue with their traditional curricula that is less and less in accordance with the real market need. Another problem is related to reliability of data when AI is used for lawyering purposes. If legal tech solution is based on the “best practice” in the world (collected by algorithms from open data), can we be sure that this practice is always in accordance of rule of law?

3)      AI uses a large repository in machine learning and deep learning. Is ıt possible to check whether personal data has been taken from this repository according to the GDPR? How can the data repository of AI be compatible with people’s “right to data protection”?

It is true, that quite a big amount of  AI machine learning applications are trained with the help of personal data or/and are processing personal data directly. GDPR does not mention AI expressis verbis, but can be seen as a sufficient legal basis for data controllers and data owners. It would be advisable to raise the awareness not only by EU institutions but also by national data protection agencies. In Estonia, such a guidelines are White paper of Data and AI 2024-2030 and AI strategy 2024-2026.  For new innovative AI applications, there is a "data protection sandbox" framework, to encourage the adoption of AI in the public sector (taking into account copyright, data protection and other requirements) by enabling testing of solutions and providing support, and thereby speeding up the development of projects. My university leds the government supported Artificial intelligence and robotics center AIRE that assists Estonian industrial companies in adopting smart digital solutions. In data protection, the concepts of digital souvereignty/data ownership should be strenghtened and properly understood by all stakeholders.

4)      Is ıt legally possible to apply decisions made by uploading fictional cases created by AI into the “predictive analytics system” as jurisprudence in real cases?

It depends of how and by whom to use the predictions, For example, in Frace, it is not allowed to create models to predict a judge’s behaviour in the courtroom. At the same time, I absolutely believe that fictional cases would be a method for learning and conducting research. Recently, TalTech law school received a funding to elaborate a AI based course. The idea of the course is to teach students what are the vulnerabilities (e.g. hallucinations) of generative AI, guide the students to use reliable data and learn the best methodology when writing prompts.

5)      As a pioneering country integrating AI into its regulations, how has Estonia prevented or intends to prevent problems that may arise in terms of violation of human rights?What is the current status of legal innovation in Estonia?Which stages should be added to this?

Sure, there are many risks related to human rights. Technical overregulation cannot become a solution as was taken out at recent conference in Tallinn “Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights. From Humane Artifacts to Artificial Human”.  Estonian Chancellor of Justice (ombudsman) Ülle Madise participated lately at a meeting at the invitation of the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, where they discussed how to implement artificial intelligence in such a way that human rights are protected. By our ombudsman “with the support of artificial intelligence, the protection of people's rights and freedoms can be significantly improved, because the machine is able to solve problems quickly and without mistakes and does not commit a crime of corruption. Unfortunately, an uncontrolled machine can do wrong things just as effectively: amplifying unequal treatment and past mistakes, for example. Therefore, Estonia also needs to move forward with Bürokratt and other artificial intelligence solutions, it is necessary to regulate both automated decisions and the use of artificial intelligence”. The role of scholarly expertise here is also very important. My law school started a EU funded project “EquiTech”together with Ministry of Economics, Ministry of Justice and the Office of Commissioner for Equal Opportunities which focuses on equality in the use of artificial intelligence, one of the results of which is a toolbox for developers. Biggest problems for any innovation are that it is not usable/needed or it is unsecure. To guarantee, that proposed public services are effective ad sustainable, we make efforts to raise the awareness and the level of inclusiveness. Clear roadmap for innovators include the sandboxes, well prepared tenders and competitive funding research. There are cooperation channels and forums for private sector (ICT cluster with ca 140 companies) to be heard by the government as well as several initiatives to foster the cooperation between universities and private sector. For example, the applied research program supports (max support 2 million eur per project) the development of innovative products and allows raise company's income by developing new or significantly changed technologies, processes, products or services. Digital services and AI use cases are among the priority areas of the support measures. Therefore, it is not a surprise that according to Statistics Estonia, 53% of companies are engaged in innovation. In the comparison between member states, the ratio of research and development expenditure invested in the business sector to GDP is measured separately. Based on the latest data, the corresponding indicator for Estonia was 1%. In the development plan for research and development, innovation and entrepreneurship 2021–2035, the target level at the national level is set at 2%. Estonian legal tech is emerging ad the innovative solutions/law firms can be easily googled out. In public sector, the new strategy for digitalization of court system is under construction.

6)      Estonia, a world leader in government digitalization, uses the term ‘kratt’ instead of ‘artificial intelligence’ The name came from their mythology which believes that it is a magical creature. Is there a particular reason for coosing this name? Could you explain the relationship between ‘kratt’ and ‘artificial intelligence’. 

Kratt is a magical creature in ancient Estonian folklore, which, flying around in a stream of fire, collects various possessions (food, clothes, money, etc.) to its creator. By government, it is used as a synonym for AI use-cases: “we use a well-known character from folklore, as a metaphor to simplify communication. As the old people know - if a problem needs to be solved, the Kratt will do the trick. Therefore, if AI is something extremely complex and mysterious for a non-expert, the kratt known from folklore helps to understand this field of new possibilities more easily”. Kratt is expected to reduce or even eliminate time-consuming work. However, it must be given work continuously, otherwise it turns against its master. Perhaps, here the somewhat controversial metaphor makes sense as the AI should also be under strict control and audited on daily basis to avoid unexpected problems and security concerns. In Estonia we are using ca 120 kratts for example for robot machines, automated border control, e-goverance, document audit, medicine (brain diagostics etc).

7)      What advice would you give law students on how to adapt to changing world order and innovation as a professor specializing in European Legal Policy?

I would reccomend always to see a big picture, not only de lege lata. Adaptivity is one of the major skill for succsessful legal expert, so try to learn approaches and aspirations of stakeholders and interest groups beside of legal community. Big changes in law take time but you can predict some developments reading the policy papers, scholarly discussions etc. You should also become better (than older generations) of managing the data flow and be able to see analogies and parallels in case the law if certain area of law is not yet adapted to the technologies. I suggest to visit foreign universities and confereces such as, for example FutureLaw in Tallinn, that always discusses the new perspectives of law and lawyers.

8)      Lastly, what does our journal mean to you as someone who has met the “Alia”s team?

I was happy to meet bright and motivated young people who have noble mission to raise the awareness and unite those who are interested of innovation in legal field. I will follow your endeavors and wish you all the best - audaces fortuna juvat!