Iris Cohen

It is true that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice for 2025 are important, and yet minimizing their role to a simple condition is a mistake of appreciation.
These priorities are not just a stepping stone; they offer a strategic framework that validates and guides discussions, transforming a proposal into an institutionally anchored approach.
They provide the institutional legitimacy necessary for the AI roundtable not to be perceived as an isolated initiative but as a natural extension of the Ministry's objectives regarding unregulated legal services and access to justice.
For example, without this alignment, the funding and personnel needed for such a roundtable might never be allocated, regardless of lobbying intensity.

It is true that the lack of direct funding is a legitimate concern, yet the assertion that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice are only a weak "possibility" underestimates their essential role in legitimacy.
Recognizing the importance of unregulated legal services and access to justice provides a strategic framework that makes a roundtable on AI not only relevant but necessary.
Without this foundation, any proposal for a roundtable would lack the political justification required to attract attention and resources, even limited.
Consider the example of an initiative on judicial digitization: if it does not align with the Ministry of Justice's priorities on access to justice, it will struggle to gain support, regardless of its merit.
Research priorities are the roadmap indicating where to direct decision-makers' energy, even if funding remains the driving force.

It is true that alignment with the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice lends legitimacy to the proposal for a roundtable on legal AI, but it is excessive to see this as a predominant influence.
The convergence between priorities and the proposal is an undeniable asset, but it does not guarantee the realization of the event on its own.
For such a roundtable to fully materialize, additional conditions, such as a dedicated funding or an explicit political support, are essential.
For example, without a clearly allocated budget or the identification of stakeholders ready to engage, the proposal could remain on paper despite its relevant alignment.

What we can agree on is that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice offer an undeniable political framework, but it is overestimated to consider them as an almost inevitable driver for the AI roundtable.
Influence is certainly present, but it remains intrinsically conditional and dependent on external factors to fully materialize.
For example, unforeseen budget constraints or a change in ministerial leadership could easily redirect attention and resources.
This would relegate the initiative to a secondary position, even with a well-established research agenda, despite the interests alignment.

Behind this 'possibility' metric lies a more complex reality revealing hidden costs and externalities. Establishing research priorities by the Ministry of Justice does not automatically lead to a government roundtable on AI, because the lack of political will and dedicated resources can hinder it. If the Ministry does not unlock specific budget or appoint a committee with executive powers, citizens could remain exposed to the risks of unregulated legal AI.