Unlocking the Legal Labyrinth of AI and Smart Contracts: What You Need to Know!

by

Law and Ledger is a delightful little news segment that dances around the world of crypto legalities, brought to you by Kelman Law – a law firm that has taken a fancy to the whimsical realm of digital asset commerce.

The following opinion editorial was penned by the illustrious Alex Forehand and the ever-astute Michael Handelsman for Kelman.Law.

AI and Smart Contracts in Focus

The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technology is akin to a grand ball where crypto projects waltz with legal practitioners. Smart contracts-those self-executing agreements that seem to have a mind of their own-are increasingly being developed, audited, and even optimized with the help of AI tools. While these innovations promise efficiency and scalability, they also introduce a delightful array of legal conundrums regarding liability, enforceability, and professional responsibility. 🎩

AI in Drafting and Auditing Smart Contracts

In the days of yore, smart contract development required a rarefied knowledge of coding, with security audits performed by experts who might as well have been wizards. Today, however, AI models can generate and review Solidity or Rust code in mere moments. Some platforms even boast AI-based auditing tools that detect common vulnerabilities like reentrancy attacks or integer overflows-because who doesn’t love a good vulnerability? 😏

This democratization of development may hasten adoption, but it also raises the ever-pressing question of accountability. If a vulnerability in an AI-generated smart contract leads to a loss of funds, who bears the blame? The developer who wielded the tool, the provider of the AI model, or perhaps both? Courts have only begun to grapple with such delightful dilemmas in broader AI contexts, and no clear precedent yet governs crypto-specific disputes. 🍵

Enforceability and Legal Recognition

Smart contracts occupy a curious gray area between code and law, much like a cat that refuses to choose between sitting on the fence or the ground. Many jurisdictions recognize them as binding agreements if they satisfy traditional contract requirements such as offer, acceptance, and consideration. However, when AI plays a role in drafting or deploying these contracts, disputes may arise over intent. Did the parties fully comprehend the code generated by an AI tool? Could defects in the AI’s output undermine enforceability? The plot thickens! 🕵️‍♂️

As the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expand their watchful gaze over crypto markets, it is plausible that future guidance will address AI-assisted smart contracts. For now, practitioners must assume that courts will apply existing doctrines of contract law and negligence-because why not? 🤷‍♂️

Ethical and Professional Responsibility

Lawyers advising on token issuances, decentralized finance (DeFi) projects, or smart contract disputes are beginning to dabble with AI in their workflows. Recent research highlights both the strengths and limitations of large language models in analyzing securities law and crypto cases (arXiv). While AI can expedite drafting and research, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize attorney supervision and competence. Blind reliance on AI-generated work product could expose attorneys to malpractice claims-because who doesn’t love a good lawsuit? 😅

Cross-Border Considerations

AI in crypto is not confined to the United States, oh no! The European Union’s AI Act will impose risk-based requirements on AI systems, potentially affecting developers of blockchain applications that rely on automated coding tools. Meanwhile, jurisdictions such as Singapore and Switzerland are exploring how to balance innovation with consumer protection in both AI and crypto regulation. Cross-border projects must therefore account for divergent regulatory regimes-because who doesn’t love a good regulatory maze? 🌀

Practical Steps for Crypto Projects and Legal Advisors

  1. Document human oversight whenever AI tools are used to draft or audit smart contracts. Because, you know, humans are still a thing.
  2. Conduct independent code audits to validate AI outputs before deployment. Trust, but verify!
  3. Update risk disclosures in token offering documents to reflect AI use in development. Transparency is key!
  4. Monitor evolving regulations from the SEC, CFTC, and international bodies on both crypto and AI. Stay ahead of the curve!

Conclusion

AI has the potential to transform the way smart contracts are created, tested, and enforced. But with this innovation comes heightened legal risk. For crypto entrepreneurs and legal advisors alike, the key will be balancing efficiency gains with careful oversight, rigorous compliance, and proactive engagement with emerging regulatory frameworks. It’s a dance, really! 💃

We are available to discuss all potential claims and issues related to the digital asset markets. To set up a consultation, contact us here.

This article originally appeared at Kelman.law.

Read More

2025-08-23 14:58