Abstract :
This paper synthesizes the rapidly expanding legal discourse on ChatGPT class systems into an integrated practice architecture that aligns legal doctrine, procedural safeguards, and systems engineering. Employing a realist synthesis, the study consolidates obligations arising from the European Union risk-based regulatory framework, data protection and residency requirements, professional responsibility norms, and evidentiary standards, and translates them into jurisdiction portable, verifiable controls. The analysis operationalizes retrieval first drafting with source pinning, authority validation, and quotation exactitude checks, alongside prompt minimization, sensitive data redaction, regional isolation, and rigorous cryptographic key custody. It further specifies immutable logging with hold aware retention, gated human oversight, and disclosure etiquette calibrated to tribunal directives. Privilege preservation is engineered through ring fenced inference environments and explicit no training covenants, while e discovery readiness is ensured by mandating the inclusion of prompts, outputs, embeddings, and model version descriptors within legal holds supported by reproducible chains of custody. Judicial self-use is bounded by internal policies requiring independent verification and memorialized transparency, and consumer protection is embedded through intelligible scope notices, escalation to licensed counsel, and documented complaint resolution. The paper introduces a control grammar that maps each safeguard to a duty vector, actor locus, mechanism class, and proof pathway, together with a maturity gradient that stages adoption from ad hoc experimentation to assured operation. The result is a computable governance fabric for firms, courts, regulators, and legal educators that replaces aspirational rhetoric with audit ready evidence, enabling lawful, ethical, and procedurally sound deployment of generative systems in legal practice.

Keywords :
Generative AI, Large Language Models, Legal Ethics, Attorney-Client Privilege, Judicial Decision-Making, EU AI Act, Data Protection, Information Governance, Legal Compliance, Legal Education.

–

References :

• Abramowicz, M. (2024). The cost of justice at the dawn of AI (GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-37).
• Ahmad, I., Bakhsh, F., Faisal, M., & Sultan, S. (2024). Regulatory framework for artificial intelligence in the legal system of Pakistan. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 2(2), 1068–1076.
• Akinduyite, O. (2024). The tango between artificial intelligence and the legal profession: An analysis of the legal and ethical implications of AI on the legal profession from a Nigerian perspective. SSRN.
• Alves, K., Santos, E., Silva, M. F., Chaves, A. C., Fernandes, J. A., Valença, G., & Brito, K. (2024, October). Towards the regulation of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI use in the Brazilian government: The case of a state court of accounts. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 28–35).
• Artigliere, R., & Losey, R. C. (2024). The future is now: Why trial lawyers and judges should embrace generative AI now and how to do it safely and productively. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 48, 323–364.
• Bessonov, O. (2024). Principles of use of artificial intelligence in justice. Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, (5), 24–29.
• Budileanu, C. (2024). Artificial intelligence and the current copyright legal framework: ChatGPT case study. Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 119, 1–18.
• Burgess, P., Williams, I., Qu, L., & Wang, W. (2024). Using generative AI to identify arguments in judges’ reasons: Accuracy and benefits for students. Law, Technology and Humans, 6(3), 5–22.
• Cardoso, A. G., Chan, E., Quintão, L., & Pereira, C. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and legal decision-making. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 19(11–12).
• Carnat, I. (2024). Addressing the risks of generative AI for the judiciary: The accountability frameworks under the EU AI Act. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, Article 106067.
• Castano, D. (2024). Justice-as-a-service and the future of legal multiplicity. UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 31, 1–35.
• Chaudhary, B., Covarrubia, P., & Ng, G. Y. (2024). The judge, the AI, and the Crown: A collusive network. Information & Communications Technology Law, 33(3), 330–367.
• Contini, F. (2024). Unboxing generative AI for the legal professions: Functions, impacts and governance. International Journal for Court Administration, 15, 1–18.
• Curran, D., Levy, I., Mistica, M., & Hovy, E. (2024). Persuasive legal writing using large language models. Legal Education Review, 34, 183–210.
• Cyran, H. (2024). New rules for a new era: Regulating artificial intelligence in the legal field. Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 15, 1–36.
• Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024). Hallucinating law: Legal mistakes with large language models are pervasive. Law, Regulation, and Policy, 1–45.
• Dasanayake, C. G. (2024). Evaluating the use of artificial intelligence for an effective justice system in Sri Lanka. KDU Law Journal, 4, 21–45.
• de Jesus Dias, S. A., & Sátiro, R. M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: A critical view. Futures, 164, Article 103493.
• De La Osa, D. U. S., & Remolina, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing—or misinforming—judicial decision-making through generative AI. Data & Policy, 6, e59.
• Deroy, A., Ghosh, K., & Ghosh, S. (2024). Applicability of large language models and generative models for legal case judgment summarization. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–44.
• Divino, S. B. S. (2024). Hey, ChatGPT: How should we teach law to Generation AI? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 406–411.
• Fagan, F. (2024). A view of how language models will transform law. Tennessee Law Review, 92, 1–38.
• Fahrani, A., & Djajaputra, G. (2024). Legal validity with artificial intelligence technology on ChatGPT as legal aid. Journal of Law, Politics and Humanities, 5(1), 54–61.
• Farrukh, T., Qureshi, F. N., & Abbasi, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the legal system. Journal of Independent Studies and Research – Computing, 22(1), 25–32.
• Fine, A., & Marsh, S. (2024). Judicial leadership matters (yet again): The association between judges and public trust for artificial intelligence in courts. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), Article 44.
• Frazier, K. (2024). The rise of the interdisciplinary lawyer: Defending the rule of law in the age of AI. Revista Forumul Judecătorilor, 28, 1–20.
• Frostestad, H. L. (2024). AI regulation in a ChatGPT era: Cross-border cooperation and hope in a sudden storm. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 32(1), 1–34.
• Greacen, J. M. (2024). Court planning during a technology explosion. The Judges’ Journal, 63(4), 44–47.
• Griffin, C. L., Jr., Laskowski, C., & Thumma, S. A. (2024). How to harness AI for justice. Judicature, 108, 42–47.
• Grimm, P. W., Grossman, M. R., & Coglianese, C. (2024). AI in the courts: How worried should we be? (Public Law Research Paper No. 24-53). University of Pennsylvania Law School.
• Guleria, A., Krishan, K., Sharma, V., & Kanchan, T. (2024). ChatGPT: Forensic, legal, and ethical issues. Medicine, Science and the Law, 64(2), 150–156.
• Gutiérrez, J. D. (2024). Critical appraisal of large language models in judicial decision-making. In Handbook on public policy and artificial intelligence (pp. 323–338). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Han, W., Shen, J., Liu, Y., Shi, Z., Xu, J., Hu, F., … Ge, M. (2024). LegalAsst: Human-centered and AI-empowered machine to enhance court productivity and legal assistance. Information Sciences, 679, Article 121052.
• Hendrickx, V. (2024). The judicial duty to state reasons in the age of automation? Erasmus Law Review, (3), 1–13.
• Hidayah, N. P., Wicaksono, G. W., Aditya, C. S. K., & Munarko, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence and quality of composition verdicts in Indonesia. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 4(1), 101–120.
• Homoki, P., & Ződi, Z. (2024). Large language models and their possible uses in law. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 64(3), 435–455.
• Huang, H. (2024). Applications of generative artificial intelligence in the judiciary. International Journal of Multiphysics, 18(2), 1–15.
• Imam, M. J., & Ahmed, S. S. (2024). The role of generative artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making processes. UCP Journal of Law & Legal Education, 3(1), 112–137.
• Iu, K. Y., & Zhou, Z. (2024). Catalyst for common law evolution. Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 15(1), 55–82.
• Janssen, A. (2024). The use of ChatGPT by the judge. European Review of Private Law, 32(5), 1–22.
• Knowlton, N. A. (2024). Access to civil justice in the age of AI. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 50(3), 5–34.
• Kowalski, M. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on administrative courts. Prawo i Więź, 53(6), 1–18.
• Kucuk, D., & Can, F. (2024). Exploiting AI technologies for legal texts. Digital Law Review, 6, 1–25.
• Kurniawan, D., & Hiererra, S. E. (2024, September). AI legal companion. In 2024 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
• Liu, J. Z., & Li, X. (2024). How do judges use large language models? Journal of Legal Analysis, 16(1), 235–262.
• Long, B., & Palmer, A. (2024). AI and access to justice. TATuP, 33(1), 21–27.
• Lorek, L. A. (2024). AI legal innovations. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 50(3), 4–32.
• Mays, A. L. (2024). The judicial perspective. Ohio Lawyer, 38, 26–30.
• Mazur, O., & Thimmesch, A. (2024). Beyond ChatGPT. Tennessee Law Review, 92, 87–130.
• Newman, B., & Garrie, D. (2024). AI regulation in dispute resolution. Dispute Resolution International, 18(2), 1–22.
• Njegovan, M., & Fišer, M. (2024). AI tools in the legal profession. Social Informatics Journal, 3(1), 15–22.
• Ogunde, F. (2024). Generative AI and access to justice in Canada. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 40, 211–228.
• O’Hara, M. J. (2024). AI jurors and the future of the jury system. International Journal of Law, Ethics & Technology, 50, 1–28.
• Olubiyi, I. A., Oyedeji-Oduyale, R., & Adeniyi, D. M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and the law. ABUAD Law Journal, 12(1), 1–27.
• Padiu, B., Iacob, R., Rebedea, T., & Dascălu, M. (2024). LLMs and the legal domain. Information, 15(11), Article 662.
• Pandey, S., Patel, A., & Pokhariyal, P. (2024). ChatGPT in law enforcement and banking. In Artificial intelligence for risk mitigation in the financial industry (pp. 327–347).
• Piegzik, M. A. (2024). AI in family law. Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis, 13(2), 26–51.
• Purba, Y. Y., & Silalahi, J. A. S. (2024). ChatGPT and civil law practices. Jurnal Penelitian Inovatif, 4(2), 673–682.
• Re, R. M. (2024). Artificial authorship and judicial opinions. George Washington Law Review, 92, 1558–1605.
• Regalia, J. (2024). From briefs to bytes. Tulsa Law Review, 59, 193–220.
• Ryan, F., & Hardie, L. (2024). ChatGPT and law clinics. International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, 31, 166–190.
• Sabieva, A., et al. (2024). Survey on legal question answering. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 540(0), 194–213.
• Satyapanich, T., Wattanakul, N., & Lehiang, T. (2024). Predicting violated law sections. In International Conference on Multi-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 180–193). Springer.
• Siani, J. A. (2024). Empowering justice. Journal of Law and Legal Research Development, 24–28.
• Smith, M. L. (2024). Generative AI in the attorney–client relationship. SMU Science & Technology Law Review, 27, 275–310.
• Stolper, I. (2024). Automated decision-making at court. Teisė, 130, 153–163.
• Surden, H. (2024). ChatGPT and law. Fordham Law Review, 92, 24–115.
• Trozze, A., Davies, T., & Kleinberg, B. (2024). LLMs in cryptocurrency securities cases. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–47.
• Tye, J. C. (2024). Privacy and generative AI. Jurimetrics Journal, 64, 309–340.
• van Eck, M. (2024). Ethical framework for ChatGPT. Journal of South African Law, 2024(3), 469–490.
• van Ettekoven, B. J., & Prins, C. (2024). AI and the judiciary. In Research handbook on data science and law (pp. 361–387). Edward Elgar.
• Vargas Penagos, E. (2024). Content moderation dilemma. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 32(1), eaae028.
• Vishwakarma, S. (2024). ChatGPT and IP law in India. Jus Corpus Law Journal, 5, 176–195.
• Wang, H. (2024). AI-assisted sentencing pitfalls. World Scientific Research Journal, 10(2), 57–71.
• Wrześniowska, L. (2024). AI vs. lawyer in the Dutch context. International Journal of Law, Ethics & Technology, 1, 1–22.
• Wyawahare, M., Roy, S., & Zanwar, S. (2024). Generative vs. intent-based chatbots. In 2024 IEEE IATMSI (Vol. 2, pp. 1–6).
• Yao, S., Ke, Q., Wang, Q., Li, K., & Hu, J. (2024). LawyerGPT. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Information Engineering (pp. 108–112).
• Zhou, S. (2024). Virtue jurisprudence and AI judgments. Journal of Decision Systems, 1–24.
• Živković, A. (2024). Legal protection of computer programs and AI. Strani Pravni Život, 68(3), 317–338.
• Ződi, Z. (2024). Legal technology and access to justice. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 64(3), 323–335.

–

---

---

WEB – PAGE COUNTER