The compensation measure as a safety net for the victim of a violent or moral crime

Introduction Recently, I have noticed it more and more often in my practice as a personal injury lawyer: clients who have ‘talked’ to ChatGPT (or some other tool) before contacting me. Clients who have their answers to my questions written by ChatGPT. Clients who submit my advice to a chatbot for review. Or clients who have compensation calculated by an AI tool. Let me say up front: I completely understand. You are in a crisis, a very uncertain situation, and are full of questions. Through your laptop, you have access to a tool that, within seconds, answers all the questions you've been walking around with for a long time. Why not take advantage of that? An understandable thought, but I also want to warn you with this blog: artificial intelligence can help you gain some insight into your situation. At the same time, it can also provide false information that can damage your business (or perhaps more importantly, your expectations of it). We want to avoid that. OpenAI draws its own line My warning relies on an important change from OpenAI itself. OpenAI is the organization behind ChatGPT that conducts research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and its implementation. Late last year, OpenAI made an interesting change to its usage policy. ChatGPT may no longer be used for “providing customized advice requiring a license, such as legal or medical advice, without adequate involvement of a licensed professional.” Freely translated, this means that ChatGPT may continue to help you with medical or legal questions. But: tailored legal (and medical) advice for your specific situation may only come from someone with authority, preferably a lawyer or doctor. Why does OpenAI do this? Because it knows things could go wrong. OpenAI does not want to bear responsibility for any harm a user suffers, such as when they act in line with ChatGPT's legal advice and suffer harm as a result. By drawing this line sharply in the terms of use, OpenAI is trying to hedge against liability. In doing so, OpenAI seems to implicitly acknowledge that legal advice from AI does not have the same value as advice from a professional. This deserves our attention, because when even the company behind ChatGPT says you should be careful with this, it sends an important message. Why ChatGPT doesn't fully understand your business That signal is not without reason. I explain this using a real-life example. I get a call from a client who says, “I have already done a quick search through ChatGPT to find out about liability in my case.” The client then talks about the extensive output on medical malpractice, liability and compensation. I hear things like, “In medical errors, liability of the doctor is never established beyond 80%, so you are always stuck with 20% of your damages. There is case law on that”. Such information is generated (perhaps even with references to case law) and it feels true, but it is not always accurate. In personal injury cases, -

Femicide is gender-related killing: being a woman and gender inequality and/or attitudes play a role. In most cases of femicide, there is a personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, such as a (former) partner or family member. From 2018 to 2022, 172 (out of 217) women were killed by someone in the domestic circle, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). That's nearly 80%. The figures are shocking: every eight days a woman becomes a victim of femicide. This makes the Netherlands the country with the highest rates in Western Europe. Femicide is often predictable and nevertheless just as often not prevented. There is usually a pattern of coercive control prior to killing a woman. Scientist Jane Monckton Smith has outlined eight phases related to femicide. Stage 1: relationship history: often the first signs are already visible during a first date, for example by statements such as ‘my ex was disturbed. Phase 2: moving too fast, such as wanting to move in together very quickly. Phase 3: control: rules are imposed by the man and if they are broken there is a consequence. Phase 4: a violent event, such as a relationship break-up. This is often the tipping point. Stage 5: escalation: an attempt is sometimes made through escalation to return to stage 3, which causes the relationship to resume. Stage 6: thinking about murder: when a man feels so rejected and/or humiliated by the ending of the relationship, plans to kill a woman begin to emerge. Stage 7: murder plans: concrete plans are made. Stage 8: murder and suicide. This phase may follow immediately after phase 7 or there may be time in between. Not only the woman is at risk, but also the children if there are any. So there are several phases prior to the moment a woman is killed, which would allow intervention by aid agencies. Despite this, there is still often insufficient attention by agencies to the signs, and many divorces or relationship breakdowns are often still wrongly labeled as fighting divorces. As a victim advocate, I regularly assist women who are victims of severe domestic and honor-based violence as well as survivors of women who became victims of femicide. In my opinion, earlier intervention is needed by government agencies to protect women from abuse and murder. I find that it is no easy task for women to be seen by police as victims of coercive control - I can help. If you have any questions about this blog, please contact the author, Nicole Hoogenboom

A fundamental right The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) names due process and access to justice as fundamental human rights. You would think that this would settle it always and everywhere, but it does not. Whether citizens actually have access to civil justice depends on practical matters, such as the ability to finance the costs of litigation. Complex liability proceedings often involve high costs. These include the costs of legal aid and often experts. Only for the rich? There are few citizens who without special provisions (such as legal expenses insurance, for example) are able to bear such costs. The question to be asked is whether only those with a lot of money have the fundamental right of access to justice. In addition to the costs necessary to conduct proceedings, there is also the risk of a court cost award in the unlikely event that the proceedings are lost. The risk of a court cost award can be so daunting that it frustrates access to justice. In the Netherlands, this risk is relatively limited because the courts use fixed amounts, which have no direct relationship to actual costs. In other countries, such as England, it may involve an order to pay the other party's actual litigation costs, which can lead to very high orders. Government The government has an important role in shaping citizens' access to justice. One way that role is fulfilled is through the regulations governing government-subsidized legal aid for citizens with limited financial resources. Those rules determine who does and does not qualify for subsidized legal aid and what fees are paid. Reimbursements for lawyers are limited, expert fees are not reimbursed, if at all, and the risk of the litigation costs order remains in full force. The legal profession The legal profession also has a responsibility. This usually involves making flexible financial arrangements with the client that make it possible to conduct the proceedings. Very recently, the Dutch Bar Association decided, after a year-long experiment, to make it definitively possible for lawyers in injury and death cases to make so-called result-related fee agreements. In concrete terms, such agreements mean No Cure No Pay. This removes financial barriers to access to justice. Lawyers are not obliged to make such agreements. Those seeking justice remain dependent on lawyers who are willing to do so. Mass claims In recent years, group or mass claims are increasingly involved. These are proceedings brought on behalf of large numbers of individuals. The possibility of bringing such claims contributes to access to justice, in part because the costs of the proceedings can be borne more easily by the group than by an individual. The Law on Settlement of Mass Damage in Collective Action (WAMCA) makes it possible for injured parties, in the case of mass damage, to jointly, through a foundation or an association