REVIEW 1 cited by
blockLAW: Blockchain Technology for Legal Automation and Workflow -- Cyber Ethics and Cybersecurity Platforms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In the current legal environment, it is essential to prioritize the protection and reliability of data to promote trust and effectiveness. This study examines how blockchain technology in the form of blockLAW can be applicable to investigate its effects on legal automation, cybersecurity, and ethical concerns. The decentralized ledger and unchangeable characteristics of Blockchain provide opportunities to simplify legal procedures, automate contract execution with smart contracts, and improve transparency in legal transactions. Blockchain is seen as a crucial instrument for updating legal processes while maintaining ethical standards, tackling issues like scalability, regulatory adherence, and ethical dilemmas such as privacy and fairness. The study examines recent developments and evaluates blockchain impact on legal structures, offering perspectives on its potential to enhance legal procedures and guarantee transparency in legal systems. It further emphasizes blockchain ability to redefine how legal professionals handle and protect sensitive information, leading to stronger, more effective, and reliable legal procedures. We have also discussed the technological considerations when it comes to blockchain integration into legal systems like integration planning, implementation strategies, innovations, advancements, trends with Blockchain Integration Framework for legal systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Legal Document Summarization: Enhancing Judicial Efficiency through Automation Detection
A legal document summarization framework is described, but the experiments use four non-legal summarization datasets and generic equations, so the claimed judicial efficiency improvements are not established.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.