French/English abstract: Les systèmes d’aide à la prise de décision jouent un rôle important dans la pratique juridique aux Pays-Bas. Divers organismes gouvernementaux utilisent de tels systèmes automatisés pour la prise de décisions juridiques (de masse). Les départements juridiques, les cabinets d’avocats, les éditeurs juridiques et d’autres organismes ont de plus en plus recours à ces outils pour appuyer et améliorer les services d’aide juridique aux particuliers et aux entreprises. Ces outils permettent d’améliorer l’efficacité des processus et des services juridiques, mais ils peuvent aussi avoir d’importants effets préjudiciables sur les droits des personnes ou sur la qualité juridique des services produits, en particulier lorsqu’il n’existe pas de processus de conception minutieux et transparent. Cet article donne un aperçu de l’utilisation de ces systèmes dans la pratique juridique néerlandaise, discute de leurs avantages, pièges et défis, puis il identifie certaines questions de recherche pour le futur.---Rule-based systems for decision support and decision-making play an important role in Dutch legal practice. Government agencies use rule-based systems for (mass) legal decision-making. Legal departments, law firms, legal publishers and various other organizations increasingly use rule-basedsystems to support and improve the provision of legal aid to private individuals and corporate clients. Rule-based systems can improve efficiency of legal processes and services, but can also have important detrimental effects on the rights of individuals or legal quality, especially when there is no careful and transparent design process. This article provides an overview of the use of these systems in Dutch legal practice, discusses benefits, pitfallsand challenges and identifies questions for future research.
ABSTRACT. It is now generally accepted that the quality of the regulatory arrangements should be appraised not only by looking at the institutional design, but also by evaluating the factual enforcement and implementation of regulations. It is therefore advised that national governments take a more active stance in supervising the regulatory enforcement by different regulatory agencies. However, in some cases, government’s activism might be an impeding factor in regulatory enforcement. That this is not so crazy idea shows the analysis of the regulatory enforcement by Lithuanian Competition Authority in the area of competition policy during the years of integration to the European Union. For example, not only political and financial independence of the Competition Authority was difficult to establish, but also functions and competences of the regulatory agency were changed a number of times, which hampered the effectiveness of the agency’s performance while enforcing the competition law. In addition to often changes of functions, also the scope of competences was changing. As a result, the variety of tasks attributed to the Lithuanian Competition Authority caused the growing overload of work, which further hindered its regulatory practice. The question is who can be blamed for that? Was it just the inexperience of the government who was seeking for the best institutional design and could not stop with redesigning the regulatory agency or was it the intentional behaviour guided by some concrete interests as a result of a regulatory capture? The analysis of the regulatory enforcement during the period of 15 years does not allow for disregarding of the second possibility.
LINK
Organizations in legal practice, under pressure to do “more for less,” are searching for ways to automate legal work, to improve efficiency of legal service delivery. Automated drafting of contracts (or: contract automation) is one of the areas where technology is—partly—replacing legal professionals. In Dutch legal practice, the number of organizations that are actively deploying contract automation is still relatively small, but growing. This chapter looks at experiences with contract automation of organizations from various sectors in Dutch legal practice. Contract automation can improve legal service delivery to consumers and SMEs, as well as contracting processes within organizations. Several organizations report positive results. However, successfully implementing contract automation, especially for internal use within organizations, is not simple. Tight budgets, resistance to change and poor integration with other software are some of the problems that organizations may encounter. Generally, human and organizational factors are often at least as important as the technological aspects. Successful implementation of contract automation requires design thinking, a proactive approach and process-oriented (legal) professionals. Regardless of these difficulties, the use of contract automation software in Dutch legal practice can be expected to increase, due to several factors. The number of organizations that are offering contracts (and other legal documents) online to SMEs and consumers has grown rapidly over the last years. Contract automation is not only offered to consumers and SMEs by commercial parties, but also by branch organizations, as a service to their members. Consumers and SMEs will become used to these self-help solutions for legal matters. Legal publishers are also increasing the offering of automated contracts and other legal documents. In addition, law firms and consultants are promoting the use of contract automation within client organizations. Finally, many corporate organizations are increasingly exchanging experiences on improving legal operations and the use of Legal Tech, including contract automation. Eventually, increased use of contract automation may drive further harmonization of contracts within sectors and facilitate other technological applications, such as the automated analysis of contracts.
