The Urgency of Legal Profession Regulation Amidst The Integration of Artificial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v9i2.26448Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Data Security, Ethics, Legal Profession, RegulationAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the legal profession by enhancing research speed, document review, and case analysis. Yet, its integration also raises pressing concerns over accountability, data privacy, and ethical standards. This study addresses the research problem: How should Indonesia regulate AI in law to balance innovation with justice and human rights? Three guiding questions inform the analysis: (1) What is the extent of AI adoption by Indonesian legal practitioners? (2) What legal and ethical risks arise? (3) What regulatory responses are most suitable for Indonesia’s plural legal context? Adopting a socio-legal methodology, data were collected through literature review, in-depth interviews, and an online survey of 102 practitioners. Findings show that 38% of respondents currently use AI tools, mainly for legal drafting and research, but skepticism persists. Advocates in Semarang reported errors in AI-generated contracts, illustrating unresolved accountability gaps under existing laws. Judges highlighted risks of bias and opacity if AI expands into case management without safeguards. The novelty of this research lies in its empirical evidence: it is the first Indonesian study to combine practitioner perspectives with regulatory analysis, moving beyond conceptual debates. By linking adoption patterns to deficiencies in the ITE Law, PDP Law, and PERMA No. 1/2019, the study reveals concrete vulnerabilities in legal practice. The study concludes that interim sectoral measures such as PERADI guidelines and judicial ethics updates are urgently needed while developing a comprehensive AI law. Responsible governance is essential to ensure AI strengthens, rather than undermines, fairness, transparency, and the rule of law.
References
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ceglianese, C., & Lehr, D. (2017). Regulating by robot: Administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. Georgetown Law Journal, 105, 1147–1213.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) (COM/2021/206 final).
European Parliament and Council. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
Government of Canada. (2019). Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) tool. https://open.canada.ca/en/aia
Government of Canada. (2019). Directive on automated decision-making. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/responsible-use-ai/automated-decision-making.html
Hildebrandt, M. (2020). Law for computer scientists and other folk. Oxford University Press.
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14 (2008).
Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2020). Model AI governance framework (2nd ed.). https://www.imda.gov.sg
Interview with Advocate in Semarang. (2025, August). Unpublished interview.
Interview with Client in Semarang. (2024, September). Unpublished interview.
Interview with Judge at Pengadilan Negeri Semarang. (2024, September). Unpublished interview.
Interview with LBH Semarang staff. (2024, September). Unpublished interview.
Irianto, S. (2012). Pluralisme hukum: Arah perkembangan hukum di Indonesia. Yayasan Obor.
Kode Etik Advokat Indonesia (PERADI). (n.d.). Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata [Civil Code] (Indonesia), Pasal 1365.
Latief, N., & Purbasari, A. (2022). Digital divide in Indonesia’s e-court implementation. Indonesian Journal of Law and Society, 3(2), 201–220.
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (n.d.). e-Court. https://ecourt.mahkamahagung.go.id
Marzuki. (2021). Regulasi teknologi di Indonesia: Antara responsivitas dan kesiapan. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 102–115.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
Moleong, L. J. (2021). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (40th ed.). PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
OECD. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. https://oecd.ai
OECD. (2021). Access to justice and technology. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6bcd5c74-en
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2019 tentang Administrasi Perkara dan Persidangan di Pengadilan Secara Elektronik (Indonesia).
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2018 tentang Administrasi Perkara di Pengadilan Secara Elektronik (Indonesia).
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 7 Tahun 2016 tentang Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim (Indonesia).
ProPublica. (2016). Machine bias. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
(Catatan: Ini adalah versi website kedua yang Afifah kirim. Tetap dimasukkan.)
Putra, A. (2023). Tantangan perlindungan data pribadi dalam era digital. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 20, 215–230.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation). (2016). Article 22.
Sakti, B.B.P., Ramli, A. (2024). Mortgaging the Skies? Legal Status of Apartment Ownership in South Sumatra’s Financial Practices. Indonesian Journal of Agrarian Law, 1(1), 33-52.
Scassa, T. (2021). Administrative law and the governance of artificial intelligence. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice, 34(2), 205–226.
Simanjuntak, M. H. (2022). Legal tech and its challenges for small law firms in Indonesia. Hasanuddin Law Review, 8(1), 45–56.
Sulistyono, H. (2022). Digitalisasi peradilan dan tantangan keadilan prosedural. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 45–60.
Susskind, R. (2017). Tomorrow’s lawyers: An introduction to your future (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Susskind, R. (2022). Tomorrow’s lawyers: An introduction to your future (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (Indonesia), sebagaimana diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Perlindungan Data Pribadi (Indonesia).
Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence. Washington Law Review, 89, 117–150.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 7, 76–99.
Wignjosoebroto, S. (2002). Hukum: Paradigma, metode, dan dinamika masalahnya. Elsam.
Wijayanti, D. (2023). Implikasi hukum Undang-Undang Perlindungan Data Pribadi terhadap penggunaan artificial intelligence. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 67–80.
Yulis, S. (2023). Legal protection on artificial intelligence technology in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum De’Jure, 7(2), 123–135.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
26448Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Andry Setiawan, S.H., M.H., Rindia Fanny Kusumaningtyas, S.H., M.H., Afifah Widyastuti, S.H., Ibadurrahman Hanan Abdullah (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All writings published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent the view of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions. Authors retain the copyrights under this license, see our copyrights notice.
