REGULATORY LIMITS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACCESS TO PROFESSIONAL SECRETS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of regulatory limits on access by artificial intelligence systems to professional secrecy in international legal and theoretical-legal dimensions. It is argued that the use of algorithmic systems in the fields of legal, medical and other confidential practices changes the very legal nature of professional secrecy, transforming it from an individual duty of non-disclosure into a multi-level regime of restraint of algorithmic power. The limitations of traditional approaches to assessing interference with privacy for describing algorithmic mediation of access to confidential information are demonstrated, and the category of “algorithmic interference with professional secrecy” is introduced.
Based on an analysis of European Union law, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and foreign regulation, it is shown that reducing professional secrecy to a type of sensitive data is methodologically insufficient. The concept of limited algorithmic delegation is proposed and the principle of human final decision in fiduciary legal relations is substantiated as a necessary condition for preserving individual professional responsibility. The conclusion is made about the need to rethink professional secrecy as a normative limit of algorithmic influence in the era of digitalisation
References
- Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG [in English].
- Markin, S.I. (2019). Advokatska taiemnytsia yak element systemy profesiinoi taiemnytsi [Attorney’s secrecy as an element of the system of professional secrecy]. Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii [Actual Problems of National Jurisprudence], Special issue, 98-101. [in Ukrainian].
- Solove, D.J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press. (GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 420). [in English].
- Lessig, L. (1999). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books. [in English].
- Labyk, A.R., & Yaremchuk, V.V. (2025). Kontseptsiia tsyfrovoho suverenitetu derzhavy: mizhnarodno-pravovyi aspekt [The concept of digital sovereignty of the state: International legal aspect]. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal [Legal Scientific Electronic Journal], (2), 393-395. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2025-2/92 [in Ukrainian].
- Michaud v. France, App. No. 12323/11, ECtHR, Judgment of December 6, 2012. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-115377 [in English].
- and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Apps. No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECtHR, Judgment of December 4, 2008. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-90051 [in English].
- European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng [in English].
- European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng [in English].
- Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [in English].
- Hoffmann-Riem, W. (2020). Artificial intelligence as a challenge for law and regulation. In T. Wischmeyer & T. Rademacher (Eds.), Regulating artificial intelligence (pp. 3-21). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32361-5_1 [in English].
- Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2010). Pro zakhyst personalnykh danykh [On Personal Data Protection], Law №2297-VI. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2297-17#Text [in Ukrainian].
- Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2012). Pro advokaturu ta advokatsku diialnist [On Advocacy and Advocacy Activity], Law №5076-VI. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5076-17#Text [in Ukrainian].
- Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (1992). Osnovy zakonodavstva Ukrainy pro okhoronu zdorovia [Fundamentals of the Legislation of Ukraine on Health Care], Law №2801-XII. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2801-12#Text [in Ukrainian].
- European Union. (n.d.). Key Issue 3: Risk-Based Approach. EU AI Act. Retrieved from https://www.euaiact.com/key-issue/3 [in English].
- European Commission. (n.d.). AI Act: Shaping Europe’s digital future. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai [in English].
- State v. Loomis, 371 Wis. 2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016). Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Case №2015AP157-CR. Judgment of July 13, 2016. Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2016/2015ap000157-cr.html [in English].
- American Bar Association. (2021). Formal Opinion 498. Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. 8 p. Retrieved from https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/aba-formal-opinion-498.pdf [in English].
- Hudson, D.L. (2021). New ABA ethics opinion addresses professional responsibilities of virtual practice. ABA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ethics-opinion-addresses-professional-responsibilities-of-virtual-practice [in English].
- Conseil national des barreaux. (2025). IA Juridiques: un outil pour vous aider à comparer les solutions [Legal AI Tools: A Tool to Help You Compare Solutions]. Retrieved from https://www.cnb.avocat.fr/fr/actualites/ia-juridiques-un-outil-pour-vous-aider-comparer-les-solutions [in French].
- Baker McKenzie. (n.d.). Does the law of privilege or professional secrecy protect inputs by lawyers into generative AI tools and the resulting outputs? Global Privilege and Professional Guide. Retrieved from https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-attorney-client-privilege-guide/europe-middle-east–africa/france/topics/07—artificial-intelligence [in English].
- Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe. (2025). CCBE guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers. 28 p. Retrieved from https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf [in English].
- Défenseur des droits. (2024). Algorithms, AI systems and public services: what rights do users have? Critical considerations and recommendations. 48 p. Retrieved from https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/DDD_rapport_algorithmes-systemes-d-IA-et-services-publics_EN_2024_20250109.pdf [in English].
- Universität Potsdam. (2024). Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht Art. 2 i.V.m. 1 GG (APR) [General Right of Personality, Art. 2 in conjunction with Art. 1 of the German Basic Law]. Rechtskunde Online. Retrieved from https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/oeffentliches-recht/grundrechte/allgemeines-persoenlichkeitsrecht-art-2-ivm-1-gg-apr [in German].
- (2024). Hinweise zum Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) [Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)]. Retrieved from https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf [in German].
- Deutsches Strafgesetzbuch ab 1871 [German Criminal Code since 1871]. Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/ [in German].
- Bloomberg Law. (2013). Cloudsourcing in the area of secrecy protection: Possible solutions to avoiding criminal liability under German law. Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/cloudsourcing-in-the-area-of-secrecy-protection-possible-solutions-to-avoiding-criminal-liability-under-german-law [in English].
- Information Commissioner’s Office. (2017). Google DeepMind and class action lawsuit. Retrieved from https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ico-40/google-deepmind-and-class-action-lawsuit/ [in English].
- National Data Guardian. (2017). NDG statement on Information Commissioner Office (ICO) decision on Royal Free. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ndg-statement-on-information-commissioner-office-ico-decision-on-royal-free [in English].
- Act on the Protection of Personal Information of 2003. Retrieved from https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4241/en [in English].
- Japan Federation of Bar Associations. (n.d.). G7 Bars and Law Societies Statement on Artificial Intelligence (AI). Retrieved from https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/document/joint_statements/240321.html [in English].
- Barabash, O.O. (2023). Tsyfrovizatsiia pravosuddia u konteksti vprovadzhennia systemy E-Sud: vyklyky ta zavdannia [Digitalization of justice in the context of the implementation of the E-Court system: Challenges and tasks]. Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. Seriia yurydychna [Scientific Bulletin of Lviv State University of Internal Affairs. Legal Series], (1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.32782/2311-8040/2023-1-8 [in Ukrainian].