Madrid’s Bar Association (ICAM) has formally proposed amendments to Spain’s Criminal Code to address what it terms “digital neo-intrusion” stemming from the increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal advice. The proposal, submitted to Spain’s Congress, seeks to update Article 403, which currently covers professional intrusion, to encompass scenarios involving AI-powered platforms offering legal “consultancy” without adequate professional oversight.
ICAM’s concerns center on the potential for automated systems – including chatbots and automated advisory tools – to provide advice that prompts users to make significant life decisions, such as signing contracts, initiating legal appeals, or accepting settlements, without the protections afforded by regulated legal practice. These protections include professional duties and accountability, ICAM argues.
“The issue goes beyond mere access to legal information,” stated Eugenio Ribón, dean of ICAM, according to the association’s statement. “It risks becoming a functional replacement for human professional judgement, with accountability blurred when the ‘service’ is delivered through products and platforms rather than an identifiable individual.”
The proposed changes to Article 403 would add two new paragraphs, aiming to specifically address “digital intrusion” whereas explicitly avoiding the criminalization of legitimate technological applications. The focus of the amendment would be placed on the operators and commercializers of these AI systems – those who design, market, and offer the services – rather than the end-users. The proposal targets systems that generate recommendations, opinions, or documents constituting reserved professional acts without direct and effective oversight by a qualified legal professional.
ICAM’s proposal includes a “human-in-the-loop” requirement, mandating meaningful professional involvement to prevent enforcement gaps and ensure human validation of AI-generated advice. The text specifically excludes from the scope of the amendment general, non-personalized legal information, internal tools used by legal professionals under their direction, and systems already subject to direct and effective professional supervision where the responsible professional is clearly identified to the user.
According to ICAM, the preventative nature of this reform is crucial, given the potential for rapid dissemination of automated advisory services and the possibility of widespread harm before such issues become widely recognized. The association’s statutes and code of ethics, last published in 2007, are currently under review in light of these technological developments, though no specific timeline for updates has been announced.
The move by ICAM follows similar discussions regarding the application of AI in other sectors, including healthcare. At a recent congress organized by ICAM, experts highlighted the need for urgent legal reforms to address the integration of AI in healthcare, comparing the current moment to an “Oppenheimer moment” due to the potential impact of AI on decision-making processes. The complexities of regulating AI, even with frameworks like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the recently approved AI Act, were as well acknowledged.
AseBio, the Spanish biotechnology association, has also recently highlighted regulatory challenges facing the sector, noting the impact of revisions to European pharmaceutical legislation and other regulations on the biotechnology industry. These parallel regulatory concerns underscore a broader trend of legal systems grappling with the implications of rapidly evolving technologies.
