Record STMT-WF91248Aspirational

The rule of law or the rule of robots? Nationally representative survey evidence from Kenya

Report State lawSub-Saharan Africa · KEin force

This academic study investigates the public legitimacy of artificial intelligence as an assistant in judicial decision-making, specifically examining whether robot law clerks are perceived as acceptable. The authors report on a vignette-based survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample in Kenya. The findings indicate that judges' reliance on AI-produced legal research is viewed as no less legitimate than reliance on human assistants. Ultimately, the paper provides empirical insights into how generative artificial intelligence interacts with normative ideals of the rule of law and access to justice.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

Taylor & Francis GroupIndustry · GB

Publisher

Legal forceAspirational

Under whose authorityState law

Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicNational governmentRegulators

Researchers, policymakers, and legal practitioners interested in the intersection of artificial intelligence, judicial administration, and the rule of law.

Sectors

Justice · adjudication and court administrationResearch and science · empirical legal studies and experimental jurisprudence

What the document contains

What's covered

The document covers an empirical investigation into the public perception of artificial intelligence assisting judges as legal research clerks, testing whether AI-generated legal interpretation undermines or aligns with the rule of law.

What's missing

The text does not provide binding regulatory standards, binding enforcement mechanisms, or formal legal definitions for deploying artificial intelligence within court systems.

Key takeaways

Large language models have reached a functional parity with human lawyers on various discrete legal tasks, challenging the assumption that legal interpretation requires exclusively human reasoning.
A nationally representative survey experiment in Kenya reveals that judges' reliance on AI-produced legal research is perceived as equally legitimate to their reliance on human assistants.
Participants rated court rulings as more legitimate when decisions were interpreted in accordance with the law's purpose rather than strictly by its literal text.
The integration of AI-based legal tools offers significant potential to alleviate judicial backlogs and enhance access to justice in resource-constrained environments.

Outline

· Part 1. Artificial legal interpretation
· Part 2. Artificial law clerks
· Part 3. Method
· Part 4. Results
· Part 5. General discussion

Issued16 July 2025

Length10,293 words · 19 pages

FormatNot recorded

Scopenational

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Human Dignity

0/5

Respect for the inherent worth of persons

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

2/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

one prominent objection is that the process by which LLMs operate is simply too opaque to litigants to count as ‘an instance of adjudication’.

Part 5

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancecontext

generative_ai legal_ai robot_law_clerks legitimacy vignette_survey_experiment