TY - JOUR

T1 - Lawful Grounds to Share Justice Data for Lawtech Innovation in the UK

AU - Smith, Hannah Louise

AU - Aidinlis, Stergios

AU - Adams-Prassl, Jeremias

AU - Armour, John

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - The digitalisation of the UK’s justice system provides new opportunities to develop insights into its efficiency and fairness. Both the UK government and commercial entities in the Lawtech Innovation space are keen to capitalise on the opportunities presented by these developments. But does the processing of justice data by lawtech innovation actors comply with UK data protection law? We respond to this question by presenting three possible constellations of relying on “public interest” and “legitimate interests” as grounds for processing in this context. We argue that lawtech analytics can potentially contribute to the “public interest” by enhancing access to justice through making bespoke legal insights much more accessible compared to the cost of specialised legal advice. Nonetheless, in the light of cautious regulatory interpretations of the first data protection principle, we proceed with a further exploration of “legitimate interests” as an alternative for public bodies and commercial entities, provided that certain requirements are satisfied. Our analysis raises broader questions about the wider regulation of the legal services sector, considering the increasing influence and participation of commercial entities.

AB - The digitalisation of the UK’s justice system provides new opportunities to develop insights into its efficiency and fairness. Both the UK government and commercial entities in the Lawtech Innovation space are keen to capitalise on the opportunities presented by these developments. But does the processing of justice data by lawtech innovation actors comply with UK data protection law? We respond to this question by presenting three possible constellations of relying on “public interest” and “legitimate interests” as grounds for processing in this context. We argue that lawtech analytics can potentially contribute to the “public interest” by enhancing access to justice through making bespoke legal insights much more accessible compared to the cost of specialised legal advice. Nonetheless, in the light of cautious regulatory interpretations of the first data protection principle, we proceed with a further exploration of “legitimate interests” as an alternative for public bodies and commercial entities, provided that certain requirements are satisfied. Our analysis raises broader questions about the wider regulation of the legal services sector, considering the increasing influence and participation of commercial entities.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 140

JO - The Law Quarterly Review

JF - The Law Quarterly Review

SN - 0023-933X

ER -