Reformulation of Virtual Advocate Regulations in a Legal Certainty-Based Digital Legal Services System in Indonesia

Rusdi; Zainal Arifin Hoesein

doi:10.71456/sultan.v4i2.2218

Penulis

Rusdi* Universitas Borobudur
Zainal Arifin Hoesein Universitas Borobudur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71456/sultan.v4i2.2218

Kata Kunci:

Virtual Advocate, Artificial Intelligence, Legal Certainty, Legal Technology

Abstrak

The development of Legal Technology (LegalTech) and Artificial Intelligence has driven the transformation of legal services towards virtual advocacy practices. However, the Indonesian legal system does not yet have regulations that specifically regulate the concept, scope, service standards, or responsibilities of the virtual advocacy profession, resulting in a legal vacuum and uncertainty in the provision of digital legal services. This study aims to analyze the legal vacuum surrounding virtual advocacy and formulate a concept for reforming these regulations based on legal certainty in Indonesia. The study employs a normative juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach. Legal materials are analyzed prescriptively through grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretations. The results show that Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates, Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions, Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection, and the Indonesian Advocates Code of Ethics do not yet accommodate virtual advocacy practices. The proposed reforms include establishing a legal definition for virtual advocates, setting limits on the use of Artificial Intelligence, electronic identification standards, client data protection, transparency in technology use, professional accountability mechanisms, and regulatory harmonization to ensure legal certainty in digital legal services.

Referensi

Asyiah, Ai Kusmiati, dan M. K. (2026). Peran Pendidikan Profesi Advokat Dalam Memahami Dan Mengaplikasikan Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Multi Disiplin, 3(1), 69–74.

Candra, G. A. E. (2025). Peran Teknologi Informasi Dalam Meningkatkan Pemberian Bantuan Hukum Kepada Klien Oleh Advokat Dalam Perkara Perdata. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), 11(1), 150–163.

Endarto, Budi, dan D. E. I. (2024). Paradigma Baru Profesi Advokat di Era Society 5.0. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Wijaya Putra, 2(2), 115–128.

Fransisko, Rendra Edwar, and A. A. (2024). Legalitas Advokat Dalam Memnberikan Layanan Konsultasi Hukum Daring Di Tinjau Dari Perspektif UU Advokat Dan UU ITE. Unes Law Review, 6(4), 12159–12164.

Irfan, B., and A. A. (2023). Pelayanan publik era digital: Studi literatur. Indonesian Journal of Intellectual Publication, 4(1), 23–31.

Jayanti, N. K. R. (2017). Legalitas Penggunaan Virtual Office Sebagai Kantor Advokat. J. Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal), 6(1), 67.

Kamila, Z. (2025). Pengaturan Hukum Dan Prospek Penggunaan Artificial Intelligence Dalam Era Digitalisasi Sistem Peradilan Di Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Multidisiplin Edukasi, 2(3), 16–36.

Khairun, I. L. L. (2025). Strategi Komunikasi Advokat Dalam Membangun Kepercayaan Klien: Ditinjau Dari Pendekatan Hukum. Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI), 3(2), 332.

Kurniawijaya, Aditya, Alya Yudityastri, dan A. P. C. Z. (2021). Pendayagunaan artificial intelligence dalam perancangan kontrak serta dampaknya bagi sektor hukum di Indonesia. Khatulistiwa Law Review, 2(1), 260–279.

Lorenza, Armenia, Artika Sophia Maharani, dan R. R. (2021). Implementasi Dan Dampak Bagi Advokat Dalam Pelaksanaan Pendaftaran Perkara Secara Virtual. DIH: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 105–116.

Mecca, Anggil Syahra Putri, Wahab Aznul Hidaya, and H. T. (2025). Pemanfaatan teknologi kecerdasan buatan (artificial intelligence) dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Sosial Teknologi, 5(6), 1730–1746.

Putro, W. D. (2020). Disrupsi dan Masa Depan Profesi Hukum. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 32(1), 19–29.

Widjaja, G. (2021). Mengapa Pengacara Memilih Kantor Virtual? (Studi Hukum dan Literasi Digital). Gorontalo Law Review, 4(2), 267–276.