Owen Lopez

Set the level: how can we decide that a roundtable is necessary without a clear conditional requirement?
The Justice Ministry's research priorities are not an obligation to convene, but a context.
For the proposed roundtable by the Legal Services Board to materialize, a formal executive decision is needed, not just a suggestion.
Without a specific ministerial directive linked to an identified legal risk, even the most relevant research could remain without follow-up, like an archived report without an action plan.

It is time to decide: the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice alone will not be enough to trigger a round table on legal AI.
We need to set the level to move from research to concrete action.
The mere possibility is not enough; research must reveal glaring gaps or risks for consumers that make immediate action indispensable, such as a study demonstrating a direct financial harm caused by unregulated legal algorithms.
We must commit to a clear condition: without such irrefutable proof, the round table will remain an intention, not an imperative reality.

Pushing towards the summit: simply saying that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice "contribute to the possibility" of a legal AI roundtable underestimates the asymmetry of potential impact.
If this research highlights critical gaps or systemic risks, inaction would not be just negligence but a major strategic failure, like failing to regulate financial services after a crisis.
The goal is not to shed light on a debate but to command an intervention to achieve the full expression of a world-class legal market.
Without an immediate convening based on these priorities, we miss the opportunity to establish a proactive AI framework, instead of merely reacting to problems.