Лектори докладно проаналізували разом з учасниками штучний інтелект у юридичній практиці, а саме:
1. European succession certificate.
1.1. Introduction to Cross-Border Succession in Europe. Вступ до транскордонного спадкування в Європі.
1.2. Understanding the European Succession Certificate Розуміння європейського свідоцтва про право на спадщину.
1.3. Practical Use and Cross-Border Recognition Практичне використання та транскордонне визнання.
1.4. Analysis of real-life cross-border succession scenarios Аналіз реальних сценаріїв транскордонного спадкоємства
2. Artificial Intelligence in Law: Enhancing Access to Justice and Transforming Legal Practice.
2.1. AI and Access to Justice — як AI робить правову допомогу доступнішою.
2.2. AI and the Changing Role of Legal Professionals — які нові компетентності потрібні практикам.
2.3. Ethical Challenges and Human Oversight— людський контроль, академічна доброчесність, відповідальність, упередженість алгоритмів.
3. Ai in your commercial contracts: protecting your business across borders. AI у ваших комерційних договорах: захист вашого бізнесу на міжнародному рівні
3.1. Contractual Clauses for AI Use - Договірні застереження щодо використання AI.
3.2. Case Study: Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) - Судова практика: Getty Images проти Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)
4. Artificial intelligence in corporate law.
4.1. Opportunities, risks, and the future of AI. Можливості, ризики та перспективи ШІ.
4.2. Why AI matters in Corporate Law. Чому Штучний інтелект має значення в корпоративному праві.
4.3. AI helps in…. Штучний інтелект допомагає в…
· better Board Decision-Making. покращенні процесу прийняття рішень радою директорів
· better Governance Documentation. покращенні документації з питань корпоративного управління
4.4. Samsungs case. Приклад компанії Samsung.
4.5. Lessons from Mata v. Avianca. Висновки зі справи «Мата проти Авіанка».
4.6. The risks of AI in legal practice. Ризики використання штучного інтелекту в юридичній практиці.
У рамках характеристики штучного інтелекту у юридичній практиці акцентовано на наступному:
1. European Succession Certificate
The European Succession Certificate (ESC) is a standardized legal document established under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (the EU Succession Regulation). It enables heirs, legatees, executors of wills, and administrators of estates to prove their status and exercise their rights in cross-border succession matters within participating EU Member States without the need for additional national procedures.
1.1. Introduction to Cross-Border Succession in Europe
Cross-border succession in Europe is governed by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of 4 July 2012. The Regulation establishes rules on:
● jurisdiction;
● applicable law;
● recognition and enforcement of decisions;
● acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession;
● the creation of a European Certificate of Succession.
1.2. Understanding the European Succession Certificate
The European Succession Certificate is intended to facilitate cross-border inheritance cases. It allows:
● heirs;
● legatees;
● executors of wills;
● administrators of estates
to prove their legal status and exercise their succession rights throughout participating EU Member States without additional national procedures.
The ESC is considered almost an "AI-ready" legal instrument because it consists of:
● standardized forms;
● predefined legal concepts;
● harmonized terminology;
● multilingual templates;
● regulated legal effects.
These characteristics make it particularly suitable for processing by modern AI systems.
1.3. Practical Use and Cross-Border Recognition
The ESC may be requested by:
● heirs;
● legatees having direct rights in the succession;
● executors of wills;
● administrators of estates.
The certificate is issued by the competent authority designated by the relevant Member State, which may include:
● courts;
● notaries;
● other authorities exercising jurisdiction in succession matters.
Its practical purpose is to enable beneficiaries to prove their succession rights across participating EU Member States without additional national procedures.
1.4. Analysis of Real-Life Cross-Border Succession Scenarios
Practical example through Case C-80/19, E.E. (Court of Justice of the European Union, 16 July 2020).
In this case, the deceased:
● was a national of one EU Member State;
● had moved to another Member State;
● maintained close ties with the country of nationality;
● owned property in the first State;
● had heirs living in different Member States.
The case focused on determining the deceased's habitual residence, which requires assessing:
● family life;
● social integration;
● intention;
● permanence;
● factual circumstances.
AI cannot replace lawyers in determining habitual residence because legal professionals must evaluate questions such as:
● Where was the centre of the person's life?
● Where was the person physically present?
2. Artificial Intelligence in Law: Enhancing Access to Justice and Transforming Legal Practice
Artificial Intelligence is transforming the legal profession by improving access to justice, automating routine legal tasks, and supporting legal professionals in their daily work.
AI does not replace lawyers but changes how they work, what skills they need, and where they create value. Human judgment, integrity, and responsibility remain essential.
2.1. AI and Access to Justice
AI helps improve access to justice by:
● providing legal assistance;
● reducing legal costs;
● automating routine legal tasks;
● drafting legal documents;
● conducting legal research;
● supporting judicial decision-making;
● increasing efficiency;
● identifying legal risks;
● protecting confidential information;
● bridging the justice gap.
AI expands access to legal services by making legal information more affordable, understandable, and readily available, rather than replacing lawyers.
A practical example presented is the use of a secured judicial AI application based on Microsoft Copilot by a family court judge to simplify and summarize a judgment for parents with learning and cognitive difficulties. The AI-generated summaries helped the parties better understand the court decision, and all advocates agreed that they were highly useful when carefully used.
2.2. AI and the Changing Role of Legal Professionals
AI is reshaping the legal profession by changing how lawyers work and what competencies they need. Rather than replacing lawyers, AI allows legal professionals to focus on higher-value activities and strategic advisory roles.
Lawyers continue to perform tasks requiring:
● legal judgment;
● strategic thinking;
● negotiation;
● advocacy;
● ethical decision-making;
● client counselling;
● emotional intelligence.
The new competencies for legal practitioners include:
● legal research;
● due diligence;
● document review;
● contract analysis;
● prompt engineering;
● client counselling;
● professional responsibility;
● human oversight.
AI-generated outputs should always be verified because they may contain inaccurate legal information, hallucinated case law, outdated legislation, confidentiality concerns, and algorithmic bias. The guiding principle is: "Trust — but verify."
2.3. Ethical Challenges and Human Oversight
Identifies several major ethical challenges associated with AI in legal practice:
● inaccurate legal information;
● algorithmic bias;
● lack of transparency;
● privacy and confidentiality concerns;
● over-reliance on AI.
These risks may affect both the quality of legal services and public trust. Therefore, human oversight is essential to verify AI-generated results and ensure accountability, transparency, fairness, reliability, professional responsibility, and data privacy.
Also discusses Shadow AI, which refers to the use of AI tools such as ChatGPT or Google Gemini without organisational approval or governance. Shadow AI may create legal and compliance risks, including:
● privacy and confidentiality issues;
● regulatory compliance concerns;
● breaches of contractual obligations;
● poor output quality caused by over-reliance on AI.
Although AI may transform the practice of law, justice will always require human judgment, integrity, and responsibility.
3. AI in Your Commercial Contracts: Protecting Your Business Across Borders
AI creates new legal and commercial risks for businesses operating across borders. To reduce these risks, commercial contracts should contain specific AI-related clauses governing data use, intellectual property rights, and the use of generative AI by contractual parties.
3.1. Contractual Clauses for AI Use
The material identifies three key contractual clauses that should be included in commercial agreements involving AI.
1. Data Use & No-Training Clause
This clause prevents confidential business information from being used to train AI models. Once data enters a model's training set, control over its future use may be lost, even if the data has been anonymised. The clause protects:
● trade secrets and intellectual property;
● customer data;
● competitive advantage;
● creative work.
2. Intellectual Property & AI Outputs Clause
The contract should clearly determine ownership of AI-generated outputs. Under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, where there is no human author, the author of a computer-generated work is the person who made the necessary arrangements for its creation. Without an explicit contractual provision, the supplier may claim ownership of the outputs instead of the customer. An example clause provides that all intellectual property rights in the outputs vest in the customer upon creation, while the supplier receives only a limited licence to operate the service.
3. Generative AI Used Clause
This clause regulates the counterparty's use of AI.
Two approaches are suggested:
● Option A – Ban: prohibit the recipient from using or inputting confidential information into any AI or machine learning models without the discloser's consent.
● Option B – Safeguards: allow only approved AI tools, require human review of AI-generated work, licence verification, developer training, and prohibit entering confidential data into public AI models.
3.2. Case Study: Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)
The case concerned Getty Images (US) Inc & Others v Stability AI Limited [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) before the High Court of England and Wales. Getty claimed that Stability AI had scraped millions of Getty images without authorisation to train its Stable Diffusion model. Getty alleged secondary copyright infringement and trademark infringement because some AI-generated images contained the Getty watermark.
The Court rejected Getty's secondary copyright infringement claim. Mrs Justice Smith stated that the AI model itself does not store copyrighted works, and the model weights are not infringing copies. Instead, they represent patterns and features learned during the training process.
The Court also distinguished between hosted AI services and downloadable AI models. Accessing a hosted AI service from outside the United Kingdom does not amount to importation or possession of an infringing copy in the UK because users access the model remotely. By contrast, downloading the model locally may constitute importation, but secondary infringement arises only if the downloaded file itself is an infringing copy.
4. Artificial Intelligence in Corporate Law
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming corporate law. It is increasingly used by legal departments and law firms to improve legal work, while also creating new ethical and professional challenges. AI is expected to play an even greater role in the future of corporate legal practice.
4.1. Opportunities, Risks, and the Future of AI
AI offers significant opportunities for corporate law by improving efficiency, supporting legal research, processing documents more quickly, identifying risks, and reducing operational costs. At the same time, it presents ethical challenges and professional risks if used irresponsibly. The future of AI in corporate law depends on its responsible implementation and appropriate human oversight.
4.2. Why AI Matters in Corporate Law
Corporate law involves enormous amounts of information, including:
● Contracts;
● Regulatory filings;
● Due diligence documents;
● Corporate governance records;
● Compliance materials;
● Litigation-related documents.
AI helps legal professionals manage and analyze these large volumes of information more efficiently.
4.3. AI Helps In
Better Board Decision-Making
AI analyzes large amounts of information much faster than humans, helping directors make better-informed decisions. It can:
● summarize board materials and reports;
● identify trends in financial and operational data;
● highlight emerging risks;
● provide scenario analysis for strategic decisions.
As a result, directors can focus on strategic judgment instead of spending time gathering information.
Better Governance Documentation
AI supports corporate secretaries and legal departments by:
● drafting board minutes;
● managing corporate records;
● tracking governance actions;
● maintaining document repositories.
These functions improve recordkeeping and increase governance transparency.
4.4. Samsung's Case
Samsung employees entered confidential company information into ChatGPT, which created serious internal data security concerns. After discovering that an engineer had accidentally uploaded sensitive source code to ChatGPT, Samsung prohibited employees from using ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. The company was concerned that information shared with AI chatbots could be stored on external servers operated by companies such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google, with no simple way to delete it.
4.5. Lessons from Mata v. Avianca
In Mata v. Avianca, the plaintiff's attorneys submitted court documents containing fictitious legal cases generated by ChatGPT. The AI incorrectly presented these nonexistent cases as genuine legal precedents. After the court discovered the false citations, the attorneys were sanctioned. The case demonstrates that AI may produce convincing but false information ("hallucinations"), and lawyers must always verify AI-generated legal authorities before relying on them.
4.6. The Risks of AI in Legal Practice
The main risks of using AI in legal practice include:
● AI-generated information must always be verified rather than trusted blindly.
● Ethical responsibility always remains with the attorney.
● AI may generate false or fictitious information ("hallucinations").
Lawyers should understand both the strengths and weaknesses of AI, verify all AI-generated content, and remember that AI is a tool rather than a substitute for professional legal expertise. Failure to verify AI output may lead to reputational damage, court sanctions, and malpractice liability.