Digital Legal Intelligence Українською

AI systems, the contracts behind them, and the disputes they end in, reviewed by one advocate.

I am Yaroslav Baienko, an advocate in Ukraine with arbitration practice at VIAC and SCC. During the 2026–2027 EU AI Act implementation window I review AI deployments where the contract, the system and a future dispute are one problem seen from three sides.

I build and operate a legal AI stack of my own, so the questions below come from systems I run, not from a checklist.

Engagements through this page are personal, under Digital Legal Intelligence. They are not GOLAW engagements.

AI system audit

For an AI system that handles legal or confidential data, whether deployed or about to launch. I test six things against evidence taken from the system itself:

  • Where data can go: every processor and model endpoint it can reach, and what actually leaves. A reranker, for example, receives whole document passages, not only the query.
  • Who can see what: whether dashboards, exports and static files inherit the restrictions of the most sensitive data they can display.
  • How models are governed: release gates, drift monitoring, fallback behaviour, and whether the tests are able to fail.
  • Whether answers are grounded: citation integrity, consistency between the database and the search index, and where generated text can pass for a legal conclusion.
  • Who approves: which actions reach production on an automated agent's say-so alone.
  • Which rules apply: EU AI Act role and risk class, the GDPR processor chain and transfers, and the Council of Europe Framework Convention with its HUDERIA methodology.

You receive written findings. Each one states the evidence behind it and the observation that would prove it wrong, followed by an order of remediation.

Email to scope an audit

AI vendor and implementer contract audit

One existing AI vendor or implementer contract, reviewed clause by clause against the 12-clause framework from Digital Legal Intelligence Edition 04, anchored in EU AI Act Art. 10, 12, 16, 18, 26(6), 43, 50, 99(3)–(4).

You receive a gap memo and a negotiation playbook for the three largest gaps.

Request a contract audit

Arbitration risk audit before filing

For a commercial dispute involving AI or technology, before a claim is filed or answered. I estimate the expected value of proceeding, the settlement range, and how case-selection effects shape which disputes reach an award. Forums include VIAC, SCC and Ukraine.

Email about a dispute

MiCA and crypto AML

Regulatory analysis for crypto-asset businesses: MiCA authorisation and white paper obligations, reverse solicitation, and EU anti-money-laundering rules including the Travel Rule.

Email a regulatory question

Contact

Email
attorneyodua@outlook.com
LinkedIn
Send a message

Digital Legal Intelligence

A bilingual newsletter on AI regulation and the architecture of legal AI, published on LinkedIn.

Read the newsletter