Inside Day Two: What the IBA Actually Debated in Copenhagen

Reloaded News International Desk

Copenhagen, Denmark – The International Bar Association Annual Conference in Copenhagen moved into its substantive phase on Monday, with the global legal community confronting a question that is becoming increasingly difficult for the profession to avoid; what happens to law when technology begins to act with a degree of independence once associated only with human beings?

The question was at the heart of discussions on the second day of the conference, particularly around artificial intelligence, professional ethics, access to justice and the future of legal services.

It followed a politically charged opening ceremony on Sunday in which the rule of law and the changing international order took centre stage.

Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, delivered the opening keynote, while Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen also addressed delegates.

The opening discussions warned of growing pressure on the international rules-based order, with IBA President Claudio Visco stressing the danger of a world in which “might makes right” could replace respect for international law. Prince Zeid, meanwhile, called for moral consistency, decency and courage in defending human rights and the rule of law.

But by Monday, the conversation had moved from the global political order to a different kind of disruption,  one being generated by technology.

When AI begins to act

One of the defining discussions of the day came during the presidential morning keynote, “AI, agency, and the law: what happens when software begins to act?”

Dr Nicklas Berild Lundblad, a lawyer and former global policy and public affairs chief at Google DeepMind, challenged the traditional legal assumption that computers are merely instruments controlled by humans.

The emerging generation of AI agents, he argued, can set sub-goals, enter commitments, execute transactions and negotiate with other autonomous systems across borders.

That creates a problem for a legal system traditionally built around human intention.

If an AI system takes an action that nobody specifically instructed it to take, who is responsible? who bears the liability? And how should the law determine intention when the decision-making process of the machine cannot be reduced to a single human command?

Lundblad also raised the prospect of what he called “agentic flooding”; a situation in which AI agents could dramatically reduce the cost of making appeals, complaints or representations to public authorities, potentially overwhelming institutions with automated demands.

The issue, therefore, is no longer whether lawyers should use AI, it has become if the existing legal concepts of agency, responsibility, identity and accountability are sufficiently prepared for machines that can act with increasing autonomy.

Governing the machines

That question continued into another major session examining the governance of agentic AI.

The discussion focused on how regulators and institutions can maintain meaningful human oversight while dealing with systems whose fundamental purpose is to operate with greater independence.

The IBA programme identified three central challenges: maintaining oversight and compliance, developing risk-based approaches for potentially dangerous AI applications, and preserving meaningful human control over systems designed to act autonomously.

The debate marks an important shift in the legal conversation.

The debate is therefore shifting from the capabilities of AI to the responsibilities that come with using it, the rules that should govern its application and the accountability that must follow when its use produces harmful or unlawful outcomes.

Can AI help close the justice gap?

Another important Day Two discussion examined the effect of technology on law and access to justice.

Millions of people around the world still struggle to obtain qualified legal assistance. The conference therefore examined whether AI and legal technology could make legal help more accessible to people who cannot afford traditional legal services.

The discussion also confronted the other side of the equation: bias, unreliable outputs, professional responsibility, privacy and the danger that technology could reproduce or deepen existing inequalities.

This is one of the most consequential debates for developing countries.

If properly deployed, technology could potentially help expand access to basic legal information, support self-represented litigants and assist under-resourced legal organisations.

But if badly governed, it could create a new form of inequality in which people with access to sophisticated technology receive better legal assistance than those without it.

Ethics catches up with artificial intelligence

The legal profession also turned its attention inward.

A dedicated session on artificial intelligence and professional ethics examined the work of the IBA Bar Issues Commission’s AI Working Group.

The working group has been updating its research and is expected to issue recommendations that could influence the IBA’s professional conduct principles and guide bar associations considering whether their own ethical rules need to change.

That is significant because the AI debate is moving beyond technology policy.

It is now becoming a question of professional conduct.

Lawyers may increasingly need to explain when and how AI was used, protect confidential information entered into AI systems, verify machine-generated material and remain personally accountable for professional advice even when technology was involved in producing it.

What will the lawyer of the future look like?

The final sessions of the day also turned to the future of legal services.

The IBA’s Future of Legal Services Commission presented work examining changes taking place across the profession and how lawyers and legal organisations are preparing for what lies ahead.

The conversation extends beyond AI.

It touches the business model of law firms, client expectations, professional skills, technology, competition and the question of what value a lawyer provides in a world where machines can increasingly perform tasks that once required hours of human labour.

For younger lawyers in particular, the implications are profound.

AI may eliminate some traditional entry-level tasks while simultaneously creating demand for lawyers who understand technology, regulation, data, ethics and complex human problems.

The challenge may will not eventually be if technology will replace lawyers, but which lawyers will be able to work effectively in a technology-driven legal environment.

A conversation Nigeria cannot afford to ignore

For Nigeria, the Copenhagen discussions should not be viewed as a distant European conversation.

Nigerian courts, lawyers, law firms, universities, regulators and businesses will confront the same questions.

Can AI improve access to justice in Nigeria?

How should Nigerian courts treat AI-generated evidence or legal research?

Who bears responsibility when AI-assisted legal work is wrong?

How should lawyers protect client confidentiality when using foreign AI platforms?

What ethical rules should govern the use of AI by legal practitioners?

And most importantly, can technology be deployed to make justice more accessible to ordinary Nigerians rather than simply making sophisticated legal services more profitable for those who can already afford them?

The conversations in Copenhagen suggest that the legal profession is entering a period in which technology, ethics and the rule of law will increasingly have to be considered together.

The second day of the IBA conference therefore offered something more consequential than another discussion about artificial intelligence.

It offered a glimpse into a legal profession preparing for a world in which the machine may no longer simply assist the lawyer; it may act.

News that informs, Media that Transforms.