INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence has moved from being a subject discussed mainly in technology circles to becoming part of everyday professional life. The legal profession is no exception.
Today, AI tools can help with legal research, reviewing large documents, analysing contracts, summarising information and preparing initial drafts, saving considerable time in a profession that often deals with vast volumes of material.
But this development raises a bigger question: if a machine can perform many tasks that lawyers traditionally performed, will lawyers eventually become unnecessary?
The answer is not as simple as yes or no. AI is undoubtedly changing how legal work is performed. But law is not only about finding information or producing documents; it also involves interpretation, strategy, professional responsibility, communication, negotiation and, above all, human judgment.
The more realistic question, therefore, may not be whether AI will replace lawyers, but how lawyers will adapt to working with it.
HOW IS AI BEING USED IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION?
AI is not entirely new to legal practice. Lawyers have used technology-assisted tools for years, particularly for document review and electronic discovery.[1]
Generative AI has taken this further. Modern systems can generate text and assist with legal research, contract review, due diligence, document analysis and drafting — uses the American Bar Association has formally recognised.[2]
Consider a lawyer working on a corporate transaction involving thousands of documents. Reviewing each one manually would take enormous time. AI-based systems can help identify relevant documents, flag unusual clauses and organise information. Similarly, an AI tool may help draft a first version of a letter or summarise a lengthy judgment.
But an important distinction remains: AI can assist with legal work; it does not perform legal judgment. A lawyer must still decide whether the information produced is correct, relevant and legally applicable to the facts of the case.
AI CAN MAKE LAWYERS FASTER, BUT FASTER DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN BETTER
Efficiency is one of AI’s biggest advantages. Hours once spent searching documents or organising information can potentially be reduced, freeing lawyers to focus on work that requires human involvement — advising clients, developing arguments and preparing strategy.
However, there is a danger in assuming that whatever AI produces is automatically reliable. A faster answer is useful only when it is a correct one — and in law, a wrong citation, an incorrect statutory provision or a misleading statement can have serious consequences.
THE PROBLEM OF AI HALLUCINATIONS
One of the biggest concerns surrounding generative AI is the “hallucination” — information that sounds convincing but is false. In legal practice, this can mean a non-existent judgment, an incorrect citation or a fabricated legal proposition.
This is not a theoretical concern. It first drew global attention in 2023, when a New York court sanctioned lawyers who filed a brief containing six fictitious case citations generated by ChatGPT.[3] India had its own reckoning in 2026. In Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, the Supreme Court set aside a tribunal’s order because it had relied on non-existent, fake and hallucinated material generated through Artificial Intelligence as if it were a precedent, resolving nonetheless to adopt AI in aid of adjudication while retaining absolute human control at every stage.[4] The Court went further, declaring a zero-tolerance policy for the Bar and Bench in citing or relying on unverified AI-generated material, holding that a decision tainted by such material is no decision in the eyes of the law, and directing the Bar Council of India to frame guidelines on the issue.[5] The lesson for lawyers is straightforward: never assume an AI-generated citation is genuine simply because it looks genuine. Every judgment, statute or authority must be checked at source before it is relied upon. This is why AI should be treated as a tool for assistance, not an unquestionable legal authority.
WHAT ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION?
Confidentiality is another major concern. Lawyers routinely handle sensitive material — personal details, business documents, contracts, financial records and information relating to disputes. Uploading such material into an AI system without understanding how it is stored or used can create serious risk.
The American Bar Association has cautioned that lawyers using generative AI must weigh their professional duties, including competence, confidentiality, client communication and the protection of client information.[6] This means a lawyer cannot simply feed confidential documents into an AI tool without first understanding what the tool does with that information, what safeguards exist, and whether its use is consistent with professional obligations. Technology may be powerful, but client confidentiality cannot become the price of convenience.
CAN AI REPLACE THE HUMAN SIDE OF LAW?
This is where “replacement” becomes complicated. A legal dispute is rarely just facts and statutes. A client may be frightened, financially stressed or uncertain about what happens next, and a lawyer must understand that, explain options, assess risk and make difficult strategic calls.
In a negotiation, AI may help analyse past agreements or flag clauses, but deciding how to negotiate — reading personalities, relationships and a client’s priorities — remains a human task. Courtroom advocacy, too, involves far more than written arguments: lawyers must respond to questions in real time and adjust strategy as proceedings unfold.
AI can process information. Lawyers remain responsible for deciding what that information means in a particular legal situation.
AI AND THE INDIAN JUDICIARY
The debate extends beyond law firms. Indian courts are also examining how AI should be used. In June 2026, the Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence Committee published the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 and invited public comment.[7] The draft is built on principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence and, at the time of writing, remains only a proposed framework: it will take legal effect solely once separately notified by the Chief Justice of India for the Supreme Court, and by the respective Chief Justices for the High Courts and courts under them. It is not yet binding law — a point the Supreme Court itself had already acknowledged weeks earlier, noting that the framework would be notified “after due process and in due course.”[8] Even so, its direction is clear: AI may assist judicial processes, but the ultimate authority over questions of law, fact and justice remains with judicial officers. Technology may assist the justice system; it should not become the justice system.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUNG LAWYERS?
For law students and young lawyers, AI’s rise needs not be seen as a threat — but the skills the profession demands are changing. Traditional legal research will remain important, but lawyers will increasingly need to understand how technological tools work, what their limits are, and when they should or should not be used. A future lawyer may need a combination of:
- Strong legal research skills
- Clear writing and communication
- Critical thinking
- Technological literacy
- The ability to verify AI-generated information
- An understanding of data privacy and confidentiality
- Sound professional and ethical judgment
Total dependence on AI is the worst approach. A student who uses it to avoid learning the law may struggle when the technology gives an incomplete or wrong answer. A lawyer who understands both law and technology, by contrast, can use AI far more effectively.
THE FUTURE: REPLACEMENT OR REDEFINITION?
The fear that technology eliminates jobs is not new; similar concerns have accompanied every major shift in professional work. AI is likely to automate some repetitive legal tasks — a realistic possibility that should not be ignored. But automating tasks is not the same as replacing a profession.
If AI absorbs routine work, the lawyer’s role may shift toward deeper analysis, strategy, advocacy, negotiation, client counselling and accountability. In that sense, AI may not eliminate lawyers — it may change what being a lawyer means.
Lawyers who refuse to engage with technology may find themselves at a disadvantage. But lawyers who trust AI blindly face a bigger problem: legal responsibility cannot be transferred to a machine.
CONCLUSION
The debate over AI and lawyers is often framed as a choice between two extremes: AI will revolutionise the profession, or it will replace lawyers altogether. Reality is likely somewhere in between. AI can make legal work faster and relieve lawyers of time-consuming tasks. But its limitations — hallucinations, reliability concerns, confidentiality risks and the absence of genuine professional accountability — cannot be ignored. Recent developments in India, from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pooja Ramesh Singh[9] to its draft regulations for AI in courts,[10] show a legal system moving toward a model where AI assists, while human authority and responsibility remain central. The future lawyer, then, is unlikely to be one who knows nothing about AI, or one who lets AI do everything. It will probably be the lawyer who knows when to use AI, when to question it, and when not to use it at all. Technology can assist the legal profession, but the responsibility to protect rights, interpret the law and pursue justice ultimately remains human.
Author(s) Name: Aanya Nagwanshi (Axis Law College)
References:
[1]Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe 287 F R D 182, 183 (SDNY 2012).
[2]American Bar Association, ‘Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools’ (29 July 2024)
[3]Mata v Avianca Inc 678 F Supp 3d 443, 448 (SDNY 2023).
[4]Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd [2026] INSC 668, [5].
[5]ibid [7], [9].
[6]American Bar Association (n 2).
[7]Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, ‘Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026’ (Notice, 3 June 2026)
[8]Pooja Ramesh Singh (n 4) [5].
[9]Pooja Ramesh Singh (n 4) [7].
[10]Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee (n 7) reg 4.