By Robert Taylor, CEO and general counsel of Legal Futures Associate 360 Law Group
Taylor: Embrace AI as the helpful sidekick it is
The end is nigh. Robotic lawyers are coming for your jobs. Machines in snazzy suits will soon be swaggering into courtrooms, offering legal advice with the efficiency of a microwave and the charm of a teaspoon.
At least, that’s what the headlines have been promising. But before you start panic-dialling HR or Googling ‘how to retrain as a barista’, let’s take a moment to examine whether the machines really are on the march – or if they’re still tripping over their own wires.
The legal profession: Still safe-ish
There’s been a lot of noise about artificial intelligence (AI) replacing human lawyers. And yes, AI can do some impressive things. It can draft documents, summarise contracts, spot patterns, and find case law faster than a pupil barrister hunting for a Greggs before court.
But let’s be honest: AI is still a glorified autocorrect with ambition. The idea that it’s ready to replace an actual solicitor or barrister – complete with years of training, finely honed judgement, and the uncanny ability to produce a five-page advice from a four-word client email – is, at best, a bit previous.
Take ChatGPT, for example. Very clever. Can hold a decent conversation. But would you trust it to handle your messy divorce or negotiate the terms of your multinational merger? Probably not. Unless you think ‘irreconcilable differences’ can be fixed with a cheerful ‘Have you tried turning it off and on again?’
Contracts and context
Now, AI has a decent grip on reviewing contracts. It can flag odd clauses, check for missing bits, and even answer terrifyingly specific questions like ‘Does this NDA survive the apocalypse?’ (which, oddly, comes up more often than you’d think).
But there’s one fatal flaw: context. AI doesn’t really understand things. It mimics understanding in much the same way a parrot might mimic your voice: technically accurate but missing the nuance.
A seasoned lawyer reads a contract and sees layers: commercial strategy, negotiation history, hidden traps, and that sneaky indemnity clause buried like a landmine in clause 37.
An AI sees… words. Lots of them. Usually in Times New Roman.
Asking AI to grasp the commercial context of a deal is like asking a Labrador to explain quantum mechanics. It might wag its tail confidently, but you’ll still end up in trouble.
Litigation: Still a human sport
Litigation is a great example of something AI is nowhere near ready for. The average courtroom is full of unpredictable humans – judges, witnesses, opposing counsel and that one client who brings 17 ring binders of ‘additional evidence’ the night before trial.
AI doesn’t deal well with unpredictability. It’s great at analysing precedent and suggesting outcomes based on pattern recognition but put it in front of a judge and it’ll freeze faster than a junior barrister asked to ‘just wing it’ at trial.
Cross-examination by a machine? Imagine Alexa trying to interrogate a hostile witness.
And no AI on Earth can navigate the subtleties of a High Court judge’s eyebrow raise. That alone takes at least five years of training and three near-death experiences.
Clients: Not ready for robot advice
Let’s not forget the human side of lawyering. Clients are emotional creatures (as are some lawyers, after their third coffee). They want empathy, reassurance, someone who can listen patiently to their rant about their neighbour’s hedge or their soon-to-be-ex-spouse’s new car.
The great AI myth: It’s smarter than you
There’s a common fear that AI is inherently smarter than us. This is nonsense. AI is faster, yes. It can memorise more case law than any human (except, perhaps, Lord Sumption), but it lacks that vital spark of judgment and wisdom.
The knowledge that sometimes the right answer is not the legally perfect one, but the one that keeps everyone out of court and your client from having a nervous breakdown.
AI might draft a perfect contract. But only a human lawyer knows whether sending it as-will close the deal or cause a massive diplomatic incident because the other side’s CEO is still irritated about a clause from 2013.
And let’s be honest: some parts of legal practice are still proudly, gloriously analogue. Who else but a human lawyer could successfully argue that a disputed fence constitutes a breach of article 8 of the ECHR?
Where AI is helpful (but not ruling the world)
To be fair, AI is extremely good at certain tasks. Document review? Marvellous. Due diligence? Smashing. Analysing large volumes of contracts to find a needle in a haystack? That’s its bread and butter. AI is the office workhorse that never sleeps, never complains and doesn’t ask for biscuits during meetings.
It’s also a fantastic tool for making legal services more accessible. Small businesses and individuals who can’t afford City-firm rates now have access to tools that help them understand contracts, lodge claims and find legal information. That’s progress, not peril.
But we’re still in the stage where AI is the assistant, not the star of the show. It’s a clever paralegal, not a partner. And frankly, most AI tools would crumble under the weight of the partner’s lunchtime wine order, let alone a court bundle.
Will AI ever replace lawyers?
One day, perhaps, when we live in a fully automated utopia, AI may play a bigger role in legal decision-making. But that day is a long way off. And even then, someone will have to programme it, check it, sue it when it goes wrong, and explain to the client why it referred to them as ‘Dearest User 37245’.
Let’s also not forget that lawyers are notoriously difficult to replace. If you’ve ever tried to find a substitute lawyer with the exact expertise needed for a case involving international property rights, vintage wine and a disputed hedge, you’ll understand. AI won’t be ready to fill those shoes for decades.
So, what should lawyers do?
First, relax. The robots are not coming to boot you out of your office (though they might help clear the backlog of unread emails).
Embrace AI as the helpful sidekick it is. Use it to do the boring bits: contract analysis, legal research, proofreading, spotting repetitive clauses, and occasionally amusing typos.
But keep doing what you do best: applying judgement, building relationships, navigating nuance, and dealing with those clients who treat legal advice like therapy with footnotes.
And if you are worried, remember this: AI might be smart, but it can’t handle office politics, coffee machine etiquette, or that one partner who still insists on dictating emails. Your job is safe – at least until the machines learn sarcasm, and frankly, not even humans have mastered that yet.
Leave a Comment