AI in Law: Complementing, Not Replacing, Human Expertise

04
Nov
2024

David Halliwell & Mike McGlinchey

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is making significant inroads in the legal sector, with an impressive 82% of lawyers now either using or planning to integrate AI into their practices. This figure is up from 39% last year according to recent LexisNexis research - underscoring AI’s surging popularity in a profession known for its heavy workloads even if traditionally risk-averse. But while AI powers through data-heavy tasks, its limitations have become more apparent as its use has increased in the legal sector, making clear that it’s no substitute for human expertise. Instead, AI amplifies what lawyers do best, enhancing efficiency while leaving critical judgement, strategy, and client relationships firmly in human hands.

AI has the scope to revolutionise efficiency within law firms and in-house legal departments. In document review, for instance, generative AI tools can process large volumes of data in minutes, performing in seconds what would otherwise take humans hours, if not days. They flag inconsistencies, identify relevant precedents, and even generate insights from historical data, enabling lawyers to focus on more strategic work. Additionally, these AI tools are useful for legal research, contract analysis, and automating routine tasks, freeing legal professionals to allocate their time and skills to more complex issues.

While AI enhances efficiency, historically its primary strength lay in tasks governed by rules or patterns. AI that is built to analyse and replicate, has excelled in areas with clear-cut parameters, such as compliance checks and data extraction, but lacks the nuanced reasoning which lawyers bring. Despite advances, AI lacks the ability to fully appreciate the unique contexts of legal scenarios, a gap that became clear during Pinsent Masons Vario’s recent evaluation of ChatGPT. In an interview designed to test AI’s understanding of the firm’s services, the tool generated responses that were broadly accurate but its explanations lacked the comprehensive insight and nuance as to how Vario delivered its services. The same has been experienced when applying it to more complex legal tasks. Pinsent Masons do use a variety of general purpose and legally focused AI tools and results can be impressive, but are always used in conjunction with human review.

Critical thinking and the ability to weigh multiple variables in real-time are attributes that are central to the role of any lawyer. AI often falls short in interpreting multifaceted scenarios where ethical reasoning and discretionary judgement are crucial. While AI can be trained on vast amounts of data, it does not possess the compass required to evaluate situations involving conflicting interests or potential business impacts. Lawyers, by contrast, bring ethical and commercial considerations to their decisions and navigate these issues with the wisdom of experience — a factor AI simply cannot replicate. This human element is particularly critical in legal settings where lives, livelihoods, and business futures may be affected.

Legal strategy is another domain where AI faces significant limitations. The best legal strategies are creative, adaptive, and tailored to each client’s unique circumstances, a skill that comes only from experience and human insight. Lawyers routinely analyse risks, anticipate counterarguments, and creatively navigate complex situations, skills honed through years of case-specific experience. 

For instance, while generative AI might recognise common trends, it can still lack the flexibility to adapt its analysis to unique factors that may arise in any given case. Unlike lawyers, who can draw on industry knowledge and anticipate potential hurdles, AI lacks the foresight to create dynamic strategies or to pivot when unexpected developments occur in a matter in real time. 

In the legal field, the human touch plays an indispensable role in client relationships. Building trust, and understanding a client’s needs goes beyond technical expertise; it requires empathy, interpersonal skills, and the ability to listen actively. Lawyers understand the subtleties of client concerns, emotions, and expectations—factors that significantly impact outcomes and client satisfaction. Clients often turn to lawyers not only for legal advice but also for guidance through some of the most challenging times of their lives, whether in corporate deals, litigation, insolvency or regulatory matters.

While AI can assist with tasks like document preparation and case research, it cannot build rapport —qualities that are central to successful legal practice. Legal services rely heavily on personal connections and the nuanced guidance that only human lawyers can provide. As AI adoption increases, this "human factor" becomes even more vital, as technology cannot replicate the emotional intelligence essential to legal counsel. Professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law School sums it up well: “AI won’t replace lawyers but will instead complement their skills, ultimately saving them time, money, and making them more effective."

AI’s role in the legal industry is transformative, although its potential should be seen as augmenting human capabilities rather than replacing them. Generative AI tools like chatbots serve as a valuable asset within a lawyer’s toolkit, allowing for faster responses and streamlined processes. But the foundational aspects of law—interpretation, strategy, and empathy—are areas where human expertise remain essential.

Ultimately, as AI technology continues to evolve, its presence in the legal industry is set to expand, but it will work best alongside, not in place of, human professionals. The current trajectory for AI in law is one where machines support analysis of large data sets while lawyers focus on what they do best: bringing judgement, creativity, and human connection to the forefront of legal practice. But AI never ceases to amaze and surprise us – it remains to be seen how far it will reach in the future.