The article examines the transformation of the judicial process through the lens of the legal status of judges in the digital age. It analyzes the historical evolution of judges’ status, its key elements, and core principles–independence, impartiality, and accountability. Particular attention is paid to the impact of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, online courts, and algorithmic tools, on judicial activity. The challenges of ensuring judicial independence, ethics, and accountability in the context of digitalization are explored. The article substantiates the need to adapt the legal status of judges, develop digital competencies, and introduce new ethical and legal approaches to maintain trust in the justice system.
transformation of the judicial process, legal status of judges, digital era, judicial independence, impartiality, accountability, artificial intelligence in law, online courts, digital competence, judicial ethics
1. Harper R.. The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon: About 2250 B.C. University of Chicago Press, 1904.
2. Scott S.P. The Civil Law: Including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo. Central Trust Company, 1932.
3. Velikaya hartiya vol'nostej 1215 g. URL: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Engl/XII/1120-1140/Charta_1136_1215/charta_1136_1215.phtml?id=12823 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
4. Grazhdanskij kodeks francuzov (Grazhdanskij kodeks Napoleona) 1804 g. URL: https://pravo.hse.ru/data/2019/01/20/1148800493/%D0%A4%D0%93%D0%9A%201804.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
5. Al-Mawardi A. The Ordinances of Government (Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya). Garnet Publishing. (Original work published in 11th century), 1996
6. Konstituciya SSHA, st. II, razd. 2. URL: https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnstUS.htm (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
7. Osnovnoj zakon Federativnoj Respubliki Germaniya, st. 97. URL: https://legalns. com/download/books/cons/germany.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
8. Organizaciya Ob"edinennyh Nacij 1985 g. Osnovnye principy nezavisimosti sudebnyh organov URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/treaty/OHCHR-1985 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
9. Senior Courts Act 1981, c. 54 § 11(3) (UK).
10. Sovet Evropy. Evropejskaya hartiya o zakone o statuse sudej 1998 g. URL: http://online.zakon.kz/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
11. Montesk'e SH. O duhe zakonov 1748 g. URL: http://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Monteskye.O (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
12. Amerikanskie federalisty: Gamil'ton, Medison, Dzhej. Izbrannye stat'i. Stat'ya № 78. URL: https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/amerikanskie_federalisty_statji_1990__ocr.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
13. Dvorkin R. Imperiya prava 1986 g. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/imperiya-prava (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
14. Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, § 9 (Can.).
15. Konstituciya YUzhno-Afrikanskoj Respubliki 1996 g., razd. 8, st. 167 URL: https://worldconstitutions.ru/?p=78 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
16. American Bar Association. Model Code of Judicial Conduct, 2011.
17. Canadian Judicial Council. Ethical Principles for Judges, 2021.
18. Hart G.L.A. Ponyatie prava 1961 g. URL: https://studfile.net/preview/16792321/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
19. Contempt of Court Act 1981, c. 49 (UK).
20. Kodeks povedeniya sudej Soedinennyh SHtatov 2019 g. Administrativnoe upravlenie sudov SSHA URL: https://mosmediator.narod.ru/index/0-364 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
21. Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364.
22. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. Independence, Accountability and Quality of the Judiciary, 2017.
23. Finnish Courts Administration. Quality Benchmarks for the Finnish Courts, 2020.
24. Law no. 303/2004 on the Status of Judges and Prosecutors (Rom.).
25. Konstituciya Ital'yanskoj Respubliki 1948 g. (st. 104–110) URL: https://legalns.com/download/books/cons/italy.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
26. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016). This case addressed the use of algorithmic risk assessments in sentencing, highlighting concerns about due process and the use of proprietary algorithms in criminal justice.
27. Ruger T.W., Kim P.T., Martin A.D., Quinn K.M. The Supreme Court forecasting project: Legal and political science approaches to predicting Supreme Court decisionmaking // Columbia Law Review. 2004. № 104(4). P. 1150–1210.
28. Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, SBC 2012, c. 25 (Can.).
29. Evropejskaya komissiya po effektivnosti pravosudiya. Evropejskaya eticheskaya hartiya ob ispol'zovanii iskusstvennogo intellekta v sudebnyh sistemah i okruzhayushchih ih realiyah 2018 g. URL: https://rm.coe.int/ru-ethical-charter-en-version-17-12-2018-mdl-06092019-2-/16809860f4 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
30. Supreme People's Court of China. Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of Smart Courts, 2017.
31. Angwin J., Larson J., Mattu S., Kirchner L. Machine bias. ProPublica, 2016.
32. Ministry of Justice of Estonia. Artificial intelligence in the courts of Estonia, 2019.
33. Susskind R. Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press, 2019.
34. Council of the European Union. E-Justice Strategy, 2019–2023.
35. Federal Judicial Center. Education and Training, 2020.
36. National Judicial College of Australia. Strategic Plan, 2020–2023.
37. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. Digital Justice Report, 2020.
38. UK Judicial Appointments Commission. Selection Criteria, 2020.
39. Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Act 2019. C. 16 (UK).
40. Upravlenie OON po narkotikam i prestupnosti. Rukovodstvo po obespecheniyu dostupa k pravosudiyu v kontekste COVID-19 2020 g. URL: https://www.unwomen.org/sites/ default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Guidance-Addressing- emerging-human-trafficking-trends-and-consequences-of-the-COVID-19-pandemic-ru.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
41. National Center for State Courts. Virtual Hearings and the Future of Court Operations, 2020.
42. Supreme Court of India e-Committee. Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
43. Grazhdanskij processual'nyj kodeks Respubliki Uzbekistan. URL: https://lex.uz/ru/docs/3517334#3520857 (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
44. Upravlenie OON po narkotikam i prestupnosti. Bangalorskie principy povedeniya sudej 2002 g. URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/bangalore_principles.shtml (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
45. American Bar Association. Formal Opinion 462: Judge's Use of Electronic Social Networking Media, 2013.
46. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2018.
47. Purvis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 148 T.C. This case addressed the ethical implications of judges conducting independent online research, emphasizing the importance of relying on evidence presented in court. 2017. № 7.
48. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Non-Binding Guidelines on the Use of Social Media by Judges 2018 // Upravlenie OON po narkotikam i prestupnosti. Ne imeyushchie obyazatel'noj sily rukovodyashchie principy ispol'zovaniya social'nyh setej sud'yami URL: https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/social_media_guidelines/Non- binding_Social_Media_Guidelines_RU.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 29.01.2026).
