Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Legal Practice

Research presented at the recent webinar “From Briefcases to Bots: The Impact of AI on Legal Practice” revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly moved from novelty to necessity in the legal profession, with more than 50% of legal practitioners already using AI particularly for tasks such as contract review, voice dictation and idea generation. The discussion, led in part by Cathy Truter, Head of Knowledge at Bowman’s, provided valuable insights into how AI is transforming law, from its opportunities to its serious risks.

THE MANY FACES OF AI IN LAW

Truter noted that AI is not a one-size-fits-all. It takes different forms, each with unique applications, and can be categorised as follows:

• General-purpose AI: regarded as versatile and easy-to-access tool but not built for legal precision. Examples include tools such as Copilot, ChatGPT, and DeepSeek.
• Legal-specific AI: these tools, though easy to use are tailored to assist with drafting, contract review, and litigation support. This includes but not limited to tools such as Harvey AI, Murphy AI, and Lagora.
• Research-focused AI: such tools are mostly used for searching relevant case law and conducting deep research, such as Lexis AI and Co-Counsel.
• Predictive analytics AI: Lex Machina is an example of this type of tool which is often used to forecast litigation outcomes based on historical data.

While these tools are increasingly common, it is critical to remember one key point, “AI does not understand language” emphasised Truter. The tool uses patterns from past data to predict likely responses. Accordingly, if the answer is unknown to the tool, it may simply make one up and this a phenomenon is known as hallucination. This is why AI is notorious for producing false or inaccurate case law when unchecked.

OPPORTUNITIES vs RISKS

The promise of AI lies in its potential to reshape practice for the better. It can reduce the time legal practitioners spend on repetitive tasks, lower costs, and improve access to legal services. Advanced applications, such as predictive analytics and compliance monitoring, may give practitioners sharper insights into litigation strategy and regulatory risk. Although the benefits are appreciated, use of AI in legal practice comes with weighty risks. Truter points out three most important risks to be weary of, namely:

1. Inaccuracy is the most immediate danger. The tool can at times fabricate citations or misapply the law and this can prejudice outcome of cases and damage credibility before the court.
2. Confidentiality is also put at risk if and when client data is uploaded onto public AI. The tool may store, reuse, or expose the information, thus, jeopardising the
   confidentiality of privileged information.
3. Finally, over-reliance on AI erodes the legal practitioner’s role as a trusted advisor, reducing legal reasoning to unchecked machine outputs.

ETHICAL DUTIES FOR LAWYERS USING AI

The theme of the presentation was not to discourage legal practitioners from using artificial intelligence but to warn against the over-use of AI without training or validating the tool. The speakers emphasised that while AI is a powerful tool, it does not relieve practitioners of their professional duties. Legal practitioners, not AI, hold the licence to practice law, therefore, accuracy and validation remain paramount. Furthermore, practitioners are implored to interrogate the tools they use, asking where the information comes from and whether it is correct. AI must be audited continually, and it is only through ongoing oversight does its reliability improve. Importantly, transparency with clients is vital. If AI is used in drafting, research, or advice, clients should be informed, allowing them the opportunity to accept or decline to the use of AI in dealing with their matter.

Writer’s Reflections

Artificial intelligence is undeniably altering the legal landscape, but it is not a replacement for the profession’s human foundations. Its value lies in enhancing efficiency, enabling broader access to legal services, and supporting lawyers in handling the increasing complexity of modern disputes. Yet, as Cathy Truter reminded us, the technology must be approached with vigilance. Without rigorous validation, ethical oversight, and careful respect for client confidentiality, AI risks undermining the very system it is meant to strengthen. Furthermore, the deployment of AI in law raises important jurisprudential questions about
responsibility, authority, and fairness. If legal analysis is increasingly filtered through algorithmic tools, there is a risk that biases encoded in training data will shape outcomes in ways that undermine substantive justice. Similarly, unchecked reliance on AI-generated outputs may erode the trust courts and clients place in legal practitioners. Thus, the critical task for lawyers is not to resist technological change, but to ensure that its adoption remains firmly
rooted in the core values of the profession: accuracy, confidentiality, accountability, and transparency. The future of legal practice will not be determined by whether AI is present, it already is. Instead, it will be determined by how the profession chooses to integrate it. Practitioners who
interrogate, validate, and govern AI responsibly will not only preserve the honour of the profession but also harness technology to deliver justice more effectively.

• Article by Mvelonhle Myeza