The digitalisation of law which is under way makes it necessary to clarify the relationship between the two, often-clashing, normative orders of Law and of Computation because we are now living in a hybrid situation where the legal code is challenged by the computing code. This clash is clearly apparent in the application of law, i.e. in Justice. For centuries, justice was based on the delimitation of a space where conflicts between physically present parties could be settled by speech and where decisions would be enforced under both the supervision of a recognised authority and the control of security measures (prison and police). But today these procedures are frequently deemed as too slow and structurally unfair due the complexity of rapidly changing laws and the persistence of human biases, whether because of racism, sexism or class. Digitalization of legal procedures is supposed to bring a technological solution to the problem: the driving force behind it is that of objectivity grounded in a de-spatialised and formal computation. The necessity to meet and argue in a confined space is replaced by another kind of necessity, that of written rules of inference automatically driven from data that lets no room for arbitrary, biased or slow decisions. But as many have already pointed out, this also has drawbacks as it weakens the mutual recognition between parties, obscures the legal qualification of perpetrated acts, often leads to a reinforcement of biases and most of all, makes the law unreadable for the ordinary citizens as well as the judges. The article’s aim is to contribute to the fair measure of pros and cons of the situation by binding the three concepts of computation, literacy and legality together.