Hugo Kim

Behind this metric, there is the question of who will pay the price of an unprepared legal framework. Certainly, establishing these research priorities by the Ministry of Justice is an important milestone, but the real impact and the speed of the roundtable on AI will crucially depend on the mobilization of resources for this research. Without substantial funding and dedicated teams, these priorities could remain mere intentions, leaving vulnerable populations exposed to the unintended effects of AI in the legal sector.

The idea that the priorities of the Ministry of Justice are just a “pioneer” is a bit quick; behind each research, there are expectations and invested human resources. Certainly, influence is conditional, but a factor often underestimated is the public pressure resulting from media coverage of the needs identified by these researches, making it harder to simply "outmaneuver" the initiative. Ignoring the social costs of inaccessible justice will always resurface, regardless of the minister.

How can one claim that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice have only a conditional role and a low weighting coefficient?
It is a reading that fails to grasp the strategy of the ministry to gain advantage.
When a ministry establishes a clear agenda on unregulated legal services and access to justice, it confers a legitimacy and a political imperative to convene this roundtable on AI, turning a simple proposal into an almost inevitable initiative.
Ignoring this driving force minimizes the weight of the executive power and its influence on the future direction of the legal market.
For example, if the Ministry publishes a report highlighting the risks of AI for consumers, it becomes very difficult for other stakeholders not to participate in a discussion to define standards.