Language models can assist lawyers, but their answers should not be used without independent verification. NAMM attorney Simone Eelmaa discusses this topic in her article “Language Models in Practice: Relevance, Reliability and the User’s Verification Burden”, published in Juridica 2026/4, pp. 342–351.
In the article, Simone examines how the wording of a prompt affects the relevance and verifiability of a language model’s answer. She compared the results of two widely used language models in searching for Estonian criminal procedure case law and assessed, among other things, whether the cited judgments actually exist, whether they are substantively relevant, and whether the quotations and summaries correspond to the content of the judgments.
The tests showed that model outputs can differ significantly. One model mostly found existing and relevant judgments, while the other more often provided fabricated references or attached correct principles to the wrong judgments. Simone emphasises that stricter instructions help only if the model is also able to state honestly that it cannot provide a reliable answer. Otherwise, requiring a precise format may instead increase the risk of fabricated quotations and references.
Justice prevailed again! Küllike Namm was acquitted in a second criminal case
A second years-long criminal case against Küllike Nammalso ended in an acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by which Küllike Namm was acquitted of the charges of fraud and use of a forged document.
Criminal proceedings like this are extremely difficult for a person. Especially when the person knows that they have not committed a criminal offence, a public accusation can be a heavy burden. It affects trust, work, relationships, everyday life and a person’s own sense of security. That is why it was especially painful for us to see Küllike’s name linked for years to unfounded accusations that ultimately were not confirmed in court.
We are sincerely happy about this outcome. Justice does not always come quickly. Sometimes it takes years to arrive. But in this case, it finally did! We also want to thank from the bottom of our hearts all the good people who supported us, trusted us and believed in us on this journey! Your support has been invaluable.
Justice prevailed! Küllike Namm was finally acquitted in the Käsmu harbour case
The years-long criminal case against Küllike Namm ended in an acquittal. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s conviction and upheld the county court’s decision, by which Küllike Namm was acquitted of the charge of breaching conflict-of-interest restrictions. Küllike was represented by NAMM attorneys Simone Eelmaa and Sander Potisepp, as well as Sorainen attorney Norman Aas.
The charge concerned a legal dispute related to the detailed planning procedure for Käsmu harbour. In cases like this, the very fact that charges have been brought may create a misleading public impression that a person must have done something wrong. The court’s final conclusion was clear: Küllike Namm did not commit a criminal offence.
For us, this is a very important and personal outcome. Küllike is the founder of NAMM, and seeing her name and work linked to a criminal charge was difficult both for her and for the firm. The acquittal does not erase all the hardship caused by the proceedings. It does not give back the years, the stress or the questions raised in public. But it gives the most important answer: the allegations were not justified and Küllike Namm did not commit a criminal offence.
We sincerely and wholeheartedly thank everyone who supported us in one way or another on this journey!
Simone Eelmaa earned a Master’s degree in IT Law
NAMM attorney Simone Eelmaa earned a Master’s degree in IT Law from the University of Tartu. This is Simone’s second Master’s degree – she previously completed a Master’s programme in International Law and Human Rights at the University of Tartu.
Her studies in IT Law complement Simone’s existing academic and practical experience in criminal law, victim representation, and socially sensitive matters. Understanding the intersections between technology and law is becoming increasingly important in everyday legal practice.
Congratulations, Simone!
Simone Eelmaa successfully defended her doctoral thesis
Simone Eelmaa, an attorney at Law Firm Namm, defended her doctoral thesis in sociology at the University of Tartu: “The social categorization of sexual abuse” (“The social definition of sexual abuse”).
The doctoral thesis examines how people understand sexual abuse, its victims, and the risk of abuse. One of the key conclusions of the thesis is that the societal understanding of sexual abuse may be much narrower than what is set out in law.
Simone’s research is an important addition to the firm’s experience in criminal law and victim representation. It brings together law, sociology, and the victim’s perspective, helping to better understand how cases involving victims should be handled in practice. Congratulations to Simone!
Juridica published Simone Eelmaa’s article on the interruption of the limitation period for an offence
Our attorney Simone Eelmaa published an article in issue 7 of Juridica titled “Some Thoughts on the Interruption of the Limitation Period for an Offence within the Meaning of § 81(5)5 of the Penal Code.” The article focuses on an important practical question in criminal proceedings: whether the submission of additional evidence at a court hearing can interrupt the limitation period for an offence. Simone analyses the interaction between § 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and § 81(5)5 of the Penal Code and explains why the distinction between submitting evidence and collecting evidence should not be blurred too lightly in proceedings. The article can be read here.
