During a talk I gave earlier this year on AI and dispute resolution, a question from the audience stuck with me: "How do you see legal AI tech tools like predictive analytics for litigation being adopted in civil jurisdictions where there’s no doctrine of stare decisis and where the judiciary and many law firms still operate with outdated technology?"
I responded that adoption would take time in some jurisdictions, and not all AI tools will be relevant to them. Since then, I’ve spoken to a number of CLOs and legal practitioners, and their feedback aligns with this view: the uptake of advanced legal AI will be gradual, especially in countries where basic legal tech infrastructure is still developing or lacking. These challenges also vary by jurisdiction, as local government policies and regulations (or lack thereof) influence how quickly AI can be adopted and used in the legal setting.
Some forward-thinking firms/companies are already leveraging AI for summarizing documents, extracting key insights, and managing chronologies. But the more sophisticated AI-driven legal tools? Those will take longer to gain widespread traction. The real question that concerns legal professionals (whether you are in-house, in private practice, an academic, or in the judiciary: Will AI replace lawyers?
The short answer: No. The more nuanced answer is what we’re going to talk about here.
AI in the legal field is a hot topic, and understandably, many concerns arise. Routine tasks like document review, contract analysis, and even case preparation are increasingly automated, making the fear of job displacement and skill devaluation real. This shift also naturally raises the question: Does this mean junior associates or paralegals will be obsolete? Will AI replace lawyers? Short answer for both: no.
Legal practice is as much about trust as it is about technical expertise. While AI can assist with client interactions, it can’t replace the human element that builds rapport with a client, or a gut instinct on what a lawyer should recommend as a strategy. Clients put their faith in their legal teams not just for their technical skills but for their judgment, empathy, and understanding of their unique business needs and long-term goals. AI can’t replicate that.
One of the biggest risks of AI in law is the phenomenon of "hallucinations",—where AI fabricates information such as case law or legal references. In 2023, a case called Mata v. Avianca, Inc. made headlines when a lawyer used ChatGPT to help prepare a legal brief, only for the AI to fabricate case citations. This led to sanctions serving as a stark reminder of the need for careful scrutiny of AI-generated content.
For businesses, having robust AI governance and internal risk frameworks in place is essential. This means implementing protocols to identify and correct errors quickly, like using a standard “AI output verification checklist” for everything from citations to contract clauses. From a CLO’s perspective, this is crucial for maintaining accuracy and preventing legal missteps.
When I first experimented with ChatGPT and Google Gemini last year, the inaccuracies would incense me and I would scold the AI tool, feeling silly afterwards (I know, don’t judge). Eventually, and as the technology improved, I learned how to prompt better and understand the tool’s respective strengths and weaknesses, I figured out when (and which AI software) I should use depending on the task at hand. Just as importantly, I also learned when not to use it at all! I saw that with the right safeguards and human oversight, AI can enhance, not replace, the work we do—allowing us to focus more on strategic counsel and building strong, lasting client relationships.
AI is incredible, mind-blowing even. You’ve heard and probably experienced firsthand how It can identify patterns and even generate predictions from a huge chunk of data. But there’s one area where it still falls short: it doesn’t come close to the nuanced judgment needed for legal professionals.
Giving sound advice as an in-house lawyer isn’t just about analyzing a set of laws or rules and applying these to the facts at hand. It’s about understanding ethics, the values and culture of an organization and other real-world factors. Take, for example, the importance of knowing your way out of conflicts of interest or ethical dilemmas. AI can analyze thousands of similar cases, but it’s the experienced lawyer who can spot the subtle ethical red flags that AI might miss.
In Kohls v. Ellison, AI-generated fake citations in an expert witness declaration caused significant consequences. These examples highlight a crucial point: while AI can assist with drafting and reviewing documents, the final call on how those documents align with legal standards, client objectives, and ethics require, well, humans.
AI may flag risks in contracts during an M&A deal, for instance, based on precedent. But it wouldn’t have the instinct to question whether a particular conflict of interest should be disclosed—something that a seasoned general counsel or law firm partner might identify right away by recognizing personal relationships or past business dealings that could affect the company’s reputation or integrity.
It’s not just about legal rules; it’s about moral judgment, too. AI could recommend a legal strategy based purely on efficiency or precedent, but it may fail to recognize situations where human empathy and understanding of long-term consequences play a critical role. AI systems can propose pursuing legal action against a long-term client – but the CLO’s deep knowledge of the client’s values and business could prompt a more nuanced decision to resolve the matter outside of court.
I have always been a strong advocate for technology in the legal profession, and from my experience, the impact of GenAI on legal teams has been nothing short of transformational. The legal industry is often slow to adopt new technology, but the acceleration of AI-powered solutions in recent years has proven that when used strategically, AI can significantly enhance efficiency, accuracy, and productivity.
The key distinction is that AI should be viewed as an augmentation tool – one that amplifies what we do best.
Take contract lifecycle management (CLM), for instance. AI can quickly review massive volumes of contracts, flagging potential risks, and automate routine tasks. But it’s still the legal team that manages the strategic negotiations, interprets legal nuances, and builds client relationships. For complex contract negotiations, AI can do the heavy lifting on the first few rounds, but the more extended negotiation rounds rely heavily on human involvement.
At Execo, we’ve seen firsthand how AI-powered solutions can streamline processes like CLM, compliance tracking, and real-time risk assessments. These tools empower not just the legal teams, but other departments as well, to be more proactive and efficient, while still maintaining the critical oversight and judgment that comes with human expertise.
This integration of AI into legal operations doesn’t mean that humans take a backseat. Instead, it’s a partnership. And this partnership is already proving successful in several areas of legal operations, such as:
Yes, this is a lot to absorb, but believe me when I say that future-proofing your legal teams is possible. There is a lot of upskilling and AI literacy involved. The teams need to fight cultural inertia, but it is well worth it.
The most successful legal teams don’t see AI as a standalone tool; they weave it into a larger strategy. When you combine AI’s computational power with the strategic thinking and interpersonal skills of legal professionals, that’s where the real magic happens and it’s something I’ve seen firsthand.
A purely AI-driven legal function isn’t just unrealistic—it’s irresponsible. Legal professionals are there to oversee AI-generated outputs, making sure all things are in place when it comes to technical accuracy, language and ethical standards.
At Execo, we’ve integrated clear escalation protocols for our clients to ensure all AI-generated outputs, whether it’s a contract review or a risk assessment, are carefully reviewed by legal experts before they’re finalized. This blend of oversight and AI efficiency helps maintain the integrity of our work.
But setting up a suitable human-in-the-loop system requires thoughtful structure and processes to work. Here’s how we’ve built ours:
AI is here to stay. But AI isn’t here to replace us. Rather, when used appropriately and responsibly, it’s a tool that amplifies our productivity, efficiency and strategic decision making. The key takeaway? AI will redefine how we work, but the core competencies of legal professionals—judgment, advocacy, negotiation, and ethical reasoning—cannot be replicated by machines.
For legal leaders, the challenge is to balance AI automation with human expertise. Those who succeed will be those who embrace AI as an enabler, not a threat. By integrating AI into their teams, they’ll be well positioned to reap the rewards of more efficient and productive teams, and as the technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, be miles ahead of their competitors in technology adoption and integration.