With the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape is changing across all industries, including within the legal profession. Australia Affected actions In Australia, at least 84 legal cases have arisen. These instances underscore the troubling trend of generative AI creating “hallucinated” content that appears real and authoritative, but is disconnected from reality. This phenomenon prompts questions regarding the reliability of AI tools like ChatGPT and others that legal professionals are increasingly adopting.
In 2024, a UNESCO survey revealed that 44% of judicial operators, encompassing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers across 96 countries, have already integrated generative AI tools into their work routines. This shift aligns with Richard Susskind’s assertion that the 2020s will be a pivotal decade for AI’s integration into law. As legal professionals venture into this new landscape, they find both opportunity and a severe threat.
The Rise of AI in Legal Practice
AI is rapidly emerging as the most transformative technology influencing legal practice. We can gauge this phenomenon, for example, in the explosive increase of its use by legal practitioners and educators. In a recent staff-wide survey, an impressive 85% of their staff—legal, consulting and back-office staff alike—reported using or interacting with AI on a weekly basis. This shift reflects a broader push toward leveraging technology to create more efficient workflows and improve operational efficiency.
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot have already passed some tests of emotional intelligence with flying colors. They got a stunning 81% accuracy score compared to humans’ 56%. Such capabilities make these tools particularly sexy for the work of document review and conducting legal research. As previously mentioned, the Australian judiciary has already established bright-line rules on AI.
In Queensland and Victoria, practice notes have been released to orient lawyers and judges to permissible usages of AI technology. In particular, legal practitioners are not allowed to use AI to generate affidavits, witness statements, and character references. Judges as well are similarly prohibited from using AI to conduct independent primary legal research. Chief Justice Stephen Gageler labeled AI an “existential” threat to the justice system in regular court. He warns against the premature adoption and misuse of its technology.
“There are some things that AI can’t do, and which it is desirable it doesn’t do.” – Justice Bell
Ethical Concerns and the Quest for Equality
Generative AI tools are ready to disrupt the legal industry. The face of this surge is creating some troubling ethical questions about their effects on justice and equality. AI, legal experts warn, risks undermining Australia’s fundamental judicial values. Lyria Bennett Moses has articulated concerns about how AI might undermine trust in the legal system and challenge the philosophy of equality before the law.
Justice Bell emphasizes that much of the judicial work involves determining disputed factual questions through witness testimony and evidence evaluation. Tasks that AI cannot perform effectively. He states, “Most of what the courts do, actually, is determine disputed factual questions and work out whose version of events is correct.” The issue is that the fact-finding process is still a humanly unique process.
Ariane Dozer focuses on the hopeful side of AI that it can democratize legal resources. She states, “It is really trying to bridge that gap and make sure that everyone can access information and tools to help them.” This potential should be thoughtfully moderated against the risks of automated decision-making.
“When machines today can make predictions, identify relevant documents, answer questions, and gauge emotions at a higher standard than human beings, it is not just reasonable but vital that we ask whether people or systems will be doing our legal work in decades to come.” – Richard Susskind
Navigating a New Judicial Landscape
The pandemic was an accidental pilot phase for testing out more non-human-centered court experiences, such as virtual courtrooms. Many jurisdictions adopted remote hearings as a necessity during lockdowns, which has since prompted discussions about the future role of technology in court settings.
Lord Justice Colin Birss from England and Wales has suggested that AI could be suitable for adjudicating specific types of cases, particularly commercial or compensation disputes lacking intense personal conflict. This view suggests the possibility of a future where AI takes on a more auxiliary position in the judicial landscape.
Even with these notable developments, a deep and damaging conviction persists in the legal profession that judging should be exclusively a human endeavor. Kimberlee Weatherall notes that while law firms have embraced AI technology, there is a consensus that the nuanced nature of judgments requires human insight and experience.
“There are real questions about what it means to have equality before the law if, for example, you’re being treated as a member of a group whose past behaviour indicates something statistically.” – Justice Bell
