The Legal AI Tipping Point
The legal sector is approaching a technological tipping point. Tools once seen as futuristic, such as natural language processing, predictive analytics, and contract automation, are now fixtures in modern practice. From billing to discovery, from drafting to dispute resolution, legal professionals are being reshaped by artificial intelligence (AI). But as with any transformation, the benefits come entwined with ethical landmines, regulatory gaps, and existential threats.
According to the recent American Bar Association ‘Legal Technology Survey Report,’ adoption and use of artificial intelligence-based tools among law firms increased in 2025, with 30% of respondents now using AI technology compared to just 11% in 2023. The perceived benefits are usually increased efficiency and research support.
Many lawyers are cautiously optimistic about the use of AI in their daily practice; however, the acceptance of AI is by no means universal.
Here’s what every lawyer should know, without the hype.
The good: efficiency, insight, and automation
AI does bring unprecedented speed and structure to tasks that once consumed hours of billable time:
- Document generation and review: Automated drafting tools can produce tailored contracts and flag risk clauses in seconds.
- Discovery and research: AI-driven search capabilities locate obscure details, support arguments, identify inconsistencies, and deliver case law with varying levels of precision
- Client engagement: Chatbots, auto-response systems, and analytics offer fast, responsive service with a quality level based on the quality of the information they are provided.
- Cost analysis: Predictive models help law firms forecast litigation expenses and even settlement outcomes, again based on the information available to them for analysis.
Done right, legal AI supports, not supplants, the human lawyer.
The bad: displacement, dependence, and the illusion of objectivity
The legal profession isn’t immune to disruption by AI:
- Role redefinition: PWC forecasts that 30% of jobs, many involving junior-level drafting and research, are at risk of automation.
- Over-reliance on incomplete tech: AI lacks intuition. It can’t make ethical judgments or interpret justice the way a trained lawyer can.
- Dangerous assumptions: Many legal AIs operate on black-box algorithms. If a tool is trained on biased or incomplete data, it risks replicating or amplifying those flaws.
Outsourcing legal cognition to a system that can’t explain itself isn’t innovation; it’s abdication.
The ugly: deep fakes, biased algorithms, and IP theft
Some dangers go beyond poor advice:
- Biased hiring: AI job tools have filtered out women from tech roles. Imagine those same filters evaluating immigration cases or social benefits eligibility.
- Privacy invasions: AI can identify data, faces, voices, and even keystroke patterns. Sensitive legal data uploaded to generative systems may be stored, reproduced, and breached.
- IP theft: AI can generate derivative content from copyrighted legal frameworks, exposing firms to unintended infringement claims.
- Human rights violations: Our privacy and personal data are at risk. Further, predictive policing tools and decision-making algorithms are being deployed throughout the world to determine the location and activities of individuals, often without transparency or the right of appeal.
AI doesn’t make ethical decisions. It makes statistical ones. There are many risks to navigate in this new landscape, and many lawyers around the world have been caught out, assuming AI tools are accurate. For example:
- In a personal injury lawsuit, attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca submitted a legal brief containing six non-existent case citations generated by ChatGPT. The court identified the fabricated cases, describing parts of the brief as “gibberish” and “nonsensical.” Both lawyers and their firm were fined $5,000 for their conduct (CBS News).
- Michael Cohen Case (2023): The former attorney for Donald Trump admitted to using Google Bard to find legal precedents for a motion to end his court supervision. The AI tool generated fictitious cases, which his attorney included in the filing. The court discovered the inaccuracies, leading to judicial scrutiny over the use of AI in legal research (AP News).
- Iovino v. MSA Security (2024): In a whistleblower lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen noted that the plaintiff’s legal team cited fictitious cases and misquoted real opinions, possibly due to reliance on AI tools. The judge ordered the attorneys to explain why they should not face sanctions for submitting misleading information (Reuters)
In response, many jurisdictions have implemented guidelines restricting the use of generative AI in preparing legal documents, particularly those presented as evidence or used in cross-examinations (The Guardian).
AI for Lawyers: proceed, but with eyes wide open
Legal professionals have always balanced innovation with caution. AI is no different. The key is deliberate deployment: knowing what a tool can do, what it shouldn’t do, and how to protect the clients, matters, and data under your care.
The legal community is advised to stay informed about the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, ensuring that their use aligns with ethical standards and does not compromise the integrity of legal proceedings or commercial processes.
At Dazychain, we believe technology should empower lawyers, not replace them. We’re committed to developing AI-integrated legal solutions that uphold professional standards, client confidentiality, and human judgment.
Let’s build the future of legal practice securely, ethically, and intelligently.
If you are interested in leveraging AI more in your workspace, you may enjoy this article: “How Can Businesses Integrate Multimodal AI into Their Existing Systems?”
By Dr Katherine King, CEO, Yarris Technologies
Dazychain Co-founder
Also read: What Are the Legal Time Limits for Filing Personal Injury Claims?
