Yes you did read that right. 

The Law Society has recently published an interesting paper on neurotechnology.  It poses the fascinating question of how brain monitoring technology will influence the practice of law and calls for urgent action on the regulation of neurotechnology.

What is neurotechnology?  Well, it is used to interact directly with the brain by monitoring and recording brain activity or acting to influence it.  It is already being used in health settings for the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s and epilepsy and in future, it could be used to monitor and treat schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Future advances could lead to lawyers needing to consider the human rights implications of brain monitoring and manipulation.

For example, it could potentially be used for the brain monitoring of criminal offenders or for cognitive enhancement.  This would create a divide between enhanced and non-enhanced humans. In addition, it could also be used to monitor workplaces, it could be used by the military, gaming and as a possible way of interacting with the metaverse.

Neurotechnology can be implanted in the brain but it may also be external to the body in the form of a headset, wristband or helmet. The Law Society’s report sets out the: challenges and opportunities that developments in neurotechnology may bring for the profession, and effect it may have on cognitive performance and the way lawyers work. It considers what neurotechnology is, its emerging ripples of impact in society, and the potential challenges, opportunities and questions facing the legal profession and the practice of law.

The report examines the legal implications of neurotechnology developments including:

  • As a neuroprotection bill makes its way through the Chilean legislative process, should our human rights include ‘neurorights’?
  • Are privacy protections, whether technological or legal, fit for purpose? The large amounts of brain data that neurotechnologies are likely to accumulate could give rise to concerns about mental privacy and surveillance.
  • Issues of equity and neurotechnological discrimination if some people in society are augmented – enhancing their mental capacities – and others are not.
  • In employment law, concerns around workplace brain monitoring.
  • The potential for defendants to claim their criminal behaviour has resulted from having their neurotechnological device or even brains hacked, while states could mandate neurotechnological solutions to the problem of crime. Could the tendency to reoffend be reduced by brain monitoring?
  • Billable hours vs ‘billable units of attention’.
  • Some tricky questions for the law will emerge, such as: “where do people end and the devices they use begin?”
  • Moving further into the future, it might be worth considering the possibility of lawyer and technology becoming less distinct than they are now.

Certainly food for thought for lawyers and businesses creating and using neurotechnology.


Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash