AI: The new frontier in SA's psycho-legal assessments - part 2

Image source: pitinan – 123RF.com

Last week, Part 1 explored the South African psycho-legal context and AI’s influence across key streams, including expert witness roles, assessments, financial analysis, ethical standards, and guideline development.

Part 2, grounded in peer-reviewed studies, examines opportunities and risks of AI-driven assessments, ethical issues with AI in decision-making, risks of dehumanisation or over-reliance, and governance strategies, proposing solutions for a balanced, inclusive approach.

Opportunities and risks of AI-driven psycho-legal assessments

Opportunities

1. Enhanced efficiency - AI reduces assessment time by automating data collection, scoring, and report generation. For example, AI-driven psychometric tools can process results in minutes, compared to hours for manual scoring (Le Glaz et al., 2021).
2. Improved accuracy - Machine learning improves the reliability of assessments by identifying patterns in complex datasets, such as psychometric scores and collateral information, reducing human error (Menezes et al., 2024).
3. Bias reduction - AI can anonymise data, minimising unconscious biases in hiring or assessments, which is critical in South Africa’s diverse workforce (Dastin, 2018).
4. Scalability - AI enables IOPs to handle high caseloads, such as RAF claims, by automating routine tasks, allowing focus on complex analyses (RAF Cash, 2024).

Corporate & Commercial Law

Legal risks of AI: Why your business needs a workplace policy

Johnny Davis, Ahmed Dhupli and Simangaliso Sithole  17 Jul 2025

Risks

1. Algorithmic bias - Poorly designed AI systems may perpetuate biases if trained on non-representative data, potentially exacerbating inequalities in South Africa (Dastin, 2018).
2. Data privacy - AI’s reliance on sensitive data raises PoPIA compliance risks, with breaches potentially eroding client trust (DLA Piper, 2021).
3. Over-reliance - Excessive dependence on AI may undermine professional judgment, leading to dehumanised assessments (APA, 2025).
4. Cost barriers - Implementing AI systems requires significant investment, which may be prohibitive for small IOP practices (Veldsman, 2020).

Ethical issues and governance in AI-driven psycho-legal practice

Ethical concerns

1. Bias and discrimination - AI systems trained on biased datasets may produce unfair outcomes, particularly in South Africa’s diverse context. For example, an AI tool trained on urban-centric data may misjudge rural claimants’ earnings potential (Dastin, 2018).
2. Dehumanisation - Over-reliance on AI risks reducing empathy in assessments, as algorithms may overlook nuanced human experiences (APA, 2025).
3. Privacy violations - Mishandling sensitive data, such as psychological or financial records, risks breaching PoPIA and eroding trust (DLA Piper, 2021).
4. Accountability - Legal ambiguities, such as responsibility for AI-generated errors, challenge professional neutrality (Tortora, 2024).

Trends

#BizTrends2025: AI-assisted HR - fast-forward to business value

Caroline van der Merwe  16 Jan 2025

Good governance

Good governance ensures AI enhances psycho-legal practice responsibly:
1. Transparent algorithms - AI systems must disclose training data and decision-making processes, allowing IOPs to verify outputs (APA, 2025).
2. Regular audits - Independent audits, as mandated by SIOPSA’s 2022 guidelines, can identify and mitigate biases (SIOPSA, 2022).
3. Informed consent - Clients must be informed about AI’s role in assessments, with clear opt-out options (DLA Piper, 2021).
4. Human oversight - IOPs must retain final decision-making authority, using AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement (Veldsman, 2020).

Proposed solution: SIOPSA should develop an AI ethics framework for psycho-legal practice, incorporating HPCSA and PoPIA standards. Training programmes on ethical AI use, supported by universities and NGOs, can equip IOPs to balance technology and human judgment.

AI is transforming psycho-legal practice in South Africa, enhancing expert testimony, assessments, financial analyses, ethical compliance, and guideline development. Practical examples demonstrate AI’s potential to improve efficiency, accuracy, and inclusivity. However, risks such as algorithmic bias, privacy concerns, and dehumanisation necessitate robust governance.

By adopting transparent, audited AI systems and prioritising human oversight, IOPs can harness AI to address South Africa’s skills crisis and workforce challenges while upholding ethical standards. Strategic partnerships between SIOPSA, universities, and government can ensure AI-driven psycho-legal practice drives sustainable, inclusive growth.