This study analyses the diversification of the South Korean legal field following institutional changes. South Korean reforms to legal education and legal practice between 2007 and 2011, specifically the 2007 Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools and the 2011 Attorney-at-Law Act amendments, expanded the pool of new attorneys and increased the number of law firms. The government increased the supply of lawyers by reforming the legal education system, while concurrent regulations promoted gender diversity in the system. Restrictions on establishing law firms were loosened. Using data on founding partners who established law firms in South Korea from 2000 to 2016, this study examines the effects of these legal reforms on the gender diversity of founding law firm partners. The findings reveal that the proportion of women among founding partners increased following these reforms, suggesting that the institutional changes encouraged gender desegregation in the Korean legal field.

Should we adopt broad, anticipatory regulatory frameworks for AI to address its wide-ranging societal impacts? This Article argues that such a universal approach is misguided. Instead, it contends that we should adopt a two-track regulatory strategy that maintains agnosticism about AI’s uncertain long-term trajectory while implementing targeted interventions to address specific, documented harms in the present. The Article develops this argument through a case study of generative AI systems in digital media, examining how these technologies are reshaping the algorithmic dynamics of the public sphere. Tracing the ways in which AI-powered content generation and curation are amplifying long-standing challenges like the erosion of shared epistemic foundations, the entrenchment of echo chambers, and the concentration of informational power, the Article highlights the limitations of the EU’s horizontal AI Act and the potential of China’s more focused, domain-specific approach to regulating these harms. Drawing on this analysis, it makes the case for a hybrid governance model that combines targeted oversight of AI’s known dangers with a continuing spirit of regulatory humility and openness toward its transformative potential. In an age of rapid technological change, this balancing act offers a path beyond the false choice between reactive overregulation and reckless laissez-faire - one that remains attuned to AI’s contextual nuances while advancing the public interest.

In this paper, I argue that the 2021 update to Facebook’s Community Standards on hate speech that distinguishes between “attacks on people” and “attacks against concepts and institutions” represented a shift in Meta’s content moderation policies from a consequentialist United States First Amendment influenced view of free speech to a constitutive approach that is responsive to the “real-world” harm of the virality of hate speech online in contexts such as India. To illustrate this argument, I focus on Meta’s response to “attacks against Islam and The Prophet” that are regularly used to attack Muslims by Hindu nationalists and their supporters, in India and abroad. The weaponisation of hate speech and the virality of speech-acts afforded by Facebook and other platforms by Hindu nationalists and their supporters to subordinate minorities and dissenting voices is one of the many contemporary practices that have contributed to the production of majoritarian legality in India.

In recent years, as the technological revolution has had an impact on all organizations and individuals across the world, the legal world has grappled with change and whether existing arrangements are appropriate where technological change raises challenges that require rapid attention. Courts, lawyers, law firms, experts, and others may have initially considered that the impacts would not be significant. That is, there was a hope that the impacts of newer technological solutions that are supported by artificial intelligence (AI) would make life easier, speed up justice and potentially reduce costs while streamlining existing processes. However, AI has prompted a rethink in relation to governance arrangements across the sector partly because there are significant risks as well as opportunities offered by the AI revolution. A dawning realisation that AI may require different working and supervisory arrangements as innovative options become available has led government and the private sector to produce AI guidelines, guardrails, legislation, codes, and mechanisms. However, existing governance approaches may no longer be fit for purpose in the legal realm partly because the issues that are linked to confidentiality and accuracy can be so significant. This Article considers the governance approaches adopted internationally with reference to selected comparative approaches as well as the pitfalls of adopting poor governance arrangements, concluding by proposing core components of good practice in organizational AI governance.