News
AUSTRIA: Is legal advice by software solutions and/or AI permitted in Austria?
In its judgment 4 Ob 77/23m from 27th June 2023 the Austrian Supreme Court, among other things, ruled that the provision of recommendations for action by software solutions and/or AI to lawyers in a legal advisory or automated manner is permissible and that the correspondence between lawyer and client may also take place entirely via a software platform as long as the confidentiality of the data is maintained. Another important finding is that it - according to the Supreme Court - is permissible to take success rates into account when selecting lawyers for clients. However, as an intermediary, the software platform may not demand a percentage of the lawyer's fee as a referral fee.
FACTS
The reason for the aforementioned Supreme Court decision was a lawsuit filed by the Austrian Lawyers Association (ÖRAV; not to be confused with the Austrian Bar Association) against a LawTech company that describes itself as the "first digital legal department on demand" and offers online legal advice through AI support.
As a rule, the defendant company initially acts as an AI-based debt collection service provider. If necessary and if desired by the customer, it subsequently brings the customer together with suitable partner lawyers, provides the latter with research results generated by an AI and (also using AI) generates legal proposals/recommendations for action for its partner lawyers. Apart from debt collection, the company also offers a similar intermediation model for other "legal issues of all kinds".
Among other things, the ÖRAV was of the opinion that it would be inadmissible to
- (as a “non-lawyer”) provide lawyers with proposals and/or recommendations for action in a legal advisory or mechanical manner, because legal advice and representation was reserved for lawyers
and
- handle correspondence between lawyers and their clients via the LawTech company's software, because this would violate the lawyer's duty of confidentiality.
In essence, the Supreme Court therefore, in the third and final instance, had to decide the questions of whether software solutions and/or AI may provide legal advice and technically "enable" communication between lawyers and their clients.
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
With regard to the AI-generated research results and recommendations for action, the Supreme Court stated that neither the business model nor the contracts of the defendant company indicated that the (partner) lawyers were bound by the (even if “only” automatically generated) research results, recommendations for action or the like or that they were otherwise released from their professional duty to represent their clients and their rights in accordance with their mandate, conscience and the law with zeal, loyalty and conscientiousness towards everyone.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out, that outsourcing is in principle also permissible for lawyers and that it was not at all comprehensible, why a lawyer may not seek or accept external or “non-lawyer” advice in principle or in this case.
The Supreme Court also did not follow the "concerns" of the ÖRAV that communication between lawyers and their clients via external software would violate the lawyer's duty of confidentiality. Rather, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the disclosure of data relating to the core area of lawyer-client confidentiality, namely the communication between the client and the lawyer, even to a third party (as in this case) contractually engaged by the latter to provide services, does not constitute a breach of the duty of confidentiality, because the third party is to be qualified as an auxiliary of the lawyer and is therefore also bound by the lawyer’s confidentiality obligation.
Although the Supreme Court did not address this in light of the above, it should nevertheless be mentioned that, in practice, the defendant LawTech company i) is anyways likely to be released from the duty of confidentiality by its customers, ii) apparently also has taken appropriate protective measures (such as double encryption of the case data in an ISO-certified cloud until the lawyer is mandated) and iii) communication does apparently no longer take place via the company's platform anyway after a partner lawyer has been mandated.
Another important finding is that – according to the Supreme Court – it is permissible to take success rates into account when selecting the partner lawyers for the customers.
However, the Supreme Court considered it inadmissible that the entire billing of the partner lawyers' fees was to be carried out by the LegalTech company, that all fees were to be transferred to the LegalTech company first and that the LegalTech company retained 25% of the lawyer's fee as an referral fee before transferring it to the partner lawyers.
CONCLUSION
Although the LegalTech company had to change its remuneration model, this decision can be seen as a breakthrough in the digitalization of the legal sector and thus as a basis for the establishment of further LegalTech companies and their services in Austria.
Link to the Supreme Court’s Decision (available only in German):
https://tinyurl.com/Decision-of-the-Supreme-Court
Article provided by INPLP member: Arpad Gered (MGLP Rechtsanwälte, Austria)
Co-Author: Alexandra Prodan
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010