One day, filled with a mix of invited talks and presentations of peer-reviewed papers. Invited speaker Karl Branting The MITRE Corporation, USA Accepted papers (full, position and short) Sudhir Agarwal, Kevin Xu and John Moghtader Toward Machine-Understandable Contracts Trevor Bench-Capon Value-Based Reasoning and the Evolution of Norms Trevor Bench-Capon and Sanjay Modgil Rules are Made to be Broken Markus Fatalin Product Liability for Autonomous Systems in Europe Raghav Kalyanasundaram, Krishna Reddy P and Balakista Reddy V Analysis for Extracting Relevant Legal Judgments using Paragraph-level and Citation Information Niels Netten, Susan van Den Braak, Sunil Choenni and Frans Leeuw The Rise of Smart Justice: on the Role of AI in the Future of Legal Logistics Marc van Opijnen and Cristiana Santos On the Concept of Relevance in Legal Information Retrieval Livio Robaldo and Xin Sun Reified Input/Output logic - a position paper Olga Shulayeva, Advaith Siddharthan and Adam Wyner Recognizing Cited Facts and Principles in Legal Judgements Pieter Slootweg, Lloyd Rutledge, Lex Wedemeijer and Stef Joosten The Implementation of Hohfeldian Legal Concepts with Semantic Web Technologies Floris Bex, Joeri Peters and Bas Testerink A.I for Online Criminal Complaints: from Natural Dialogues to Structured Scenarios Robert van Doesburg, Tijs van der Storm and Tom van Engers CALCULEMUS: Towards a Formal Language for the Interpretation of Normative Systems Henry Prakken On how AI & law can help autonomous systems obey the law: a position paper Giovanni Sileno, Alexander Boer and Tom Van Engers Reading Agendas Between the Lines, an Exercise Bart Verheij Formalizing Correct Evidential Reasoning with Arguments, Scenarios and Probabilities

Employing online tools to settle routine legal disputes can improve access to justice for people who can t afford to hire a lawyer, while freeing up court dockets for more complex cases, enthusiasts say. And citizen expectations are being driven by the private sector, Rule says. Courts and government agencies that adopt the technology stand the best chance of keeping their constituents satisfied, he says.

During his 15 years as president of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern was a controversial figure. He suffered his share of criticism from inside and outside the union. There was, however, no disputing his success in making SEIU the largest and fastest growing union in the country and a powerful political machine that was instrumental in electing President Obama and getting the Affordable Care Act passed. During Stern's tenure as national organizing director and president, he introduced and implemented strategies of industry-wide organizing and bargaining to counter the changing reality of employers who were becoming large and international. He took SEIU out of the AFL-CIO and formed a new labor federation called Change to Win, because he felt the mainstream labor movement was too conservative about organizing and limited its power by refusing to consolidate smaller unions into bigger and more powerful ones.

According to some prominent voices in the tech world, artificial intelligence presents a looming existential threat to humanity: Warnings by luminaries like Mr Elon Musk and Professor Nick Bostrom about "the singularity" - when machines become smarter than humans - have attracted millions of dollars and spawned a multitude of conferences. But this hand-wringing is a distraction from the very real problems with artificial intelligence today, which may already be exacerbating inequality in the workplace, at home and in our legal and judicial systems. Sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are being built into the machine-learning algorithms that underlie the technology behind many "intelligent" systems that shape how we are categorised and advertised to. Take a small example from last year: Users discovered that Google's photo app, which applies automatic labels to pictures in digital photo albums, was classifying images of black people as gorillas. Google apologised; it was unintentional. But similar errors have emerged in Nikon's camera software, which misread images of Asian people as blinking, and in Hewlett-Packard's Web camera software, which had difficulty recognising people with dark skin tones.

While everyone's eyes were on the Brexit vote and staggering economic implications this week, my mind was drifting to another crucial development within the EU. A draft European Parliament motion was recently put forward to begin to classify robots as "electronic persons." In a response to the proliferation of robotics and AI in the workplace, policy makers are attempting to stay ahead of the curve and preempt challenges they foresee around bureaucratic issues such as taxation and legal liability. As corporations rely more and more on automation and less and less on human workers, a new taxation structure will be required to ensure that governments still have funding flowing into their coffers. Moreover, as robotics become more sophisticated and we hand them increasingly critical tasks, issues around actor liability and insurance become very complicated.

Many bright minds, like Stephen Hawking, believe that the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence could lead to the end of humanity. There have been books written theorizing about the potential dangers of AI like, "SuperIntelligence: Paths, Dangers, and Stategies", by Nick Bostrom, which is a fascinating and dense read that most people probably won't be able to get through. Like most topics in life, there are two directly opposing sides of belief surrounding a heated topic, and artificial intelligence is no different. There are very successful and smart people like Ray Kurzweil, who have written multiple books on the subject, and who are in strong support of artificial intelligence and other new technology. Some may even call Ray Kurzweil's belief in AI a little extreme, and many people have criticized his beliefs and theories in the past, but discussing his critics isn't the point of this article.

Trader Navinder Singh Sarao, who is resisting market manipulation charges, at Westminster Magistrates' Court In Robert Harris's 2011 novel The Fear Index a secretive hedge fund builds a computer capable of making its own trading decisions. Gobbling up information, the machine starts to confuse its human creators by building huge stakes and making a handsome profit from a market panic. As they assess the outcome, one of the protagonists notes: "The beauty of it is that it was but 0.4 per cent of total market volatility. No one will ever notice, except us." As markets increasingly rely on computer algorithms, reality is imitating fiction: artificial intelligence is becoming a bigger part of investing and it is also helping regulators ensure that traders do not get away with bad behaviour.

Have you stopped to ask yourself recently whether that brilliant, off-the-cuff witticism you made in a tweet last week belongs to you, Twitter, or the company whose chatbot absorbed the data and reconfigured itself to make similar remarks? And how much more complicated will that question become when the chatbots begin changing based on language used by other chatbots? But by then, even the legal counsel may themselves be chatbots – a version of the future already being prosecuted by the folks at IBM who provide the brains behind the Ross Super Intelligent Attorney, an AI used for answering legal questions.

The legal media has lately had a mania for tech headlines. Many commentators claim that tech, especially artificial intelligence (AI), will do something to Big Law. Tech more likely will do something in it: incremental change. I start with the case against disruption, then look at four headline-grabbing technologies: AI, Bots, Big Data, and Blockchain. By the late 1980s, a few law firms had most of their lawyers using PCs.

The fatal crash of a Tesla electric car using an autopilot feature still in beta testing -- and never reviewed by regulators -- highlighted what some say is a gaping pothole on the road to self-driving vehicles: the lack of federal rules.