Artificial Lawyering?

-- By AvanequePennant - 20 Feb 2025

The increased prominence and capabilities of artificial intelligence in society have caused anxiety in many sectors and the legal industry has not been an exception. Lawyers have used artificial intelligence to aid in legal research, case strategy, document review, and legal drafting. The most famous examples of lawyering in the age of artificial intelligence illustrate the dangers of these learning models, including the threat of “hallucination,” where lawyers have submitted briefs with citations to make up case law.

While AI has the potential to promote efficiency and access, it also raises concerns about the function and future of human judgment in the legal profession. I understand major concerns about the role of AI in lawyering to fall into two main anxieties: first, that AI will replace the need for human legal expertise, and second, that AI dehumanizes the legal profession.

The Fear That AI Will Replace Human Legal Expertise

Despite its capabilities, AI cannot (yet?) replicate the humanity and creativity central to persuasive advocacy and legal judgment. While AI can generate arguments based on precedent, it cannot develop novel legal theories or respond to unexpected courtroom dynamics. Effective lawyering requires emotional intelligence, strategy, and interpersonal persuasion, all of which are essential to achieving favorable outcomes for clients.

The Fear That AI Dehumanizes the Legal Profession

Concerns about AI’s role in law extends beyond fears of job displacement. There is also a broader anxiety that AI will fundamentally alter the nature of legal practice by removing the human element from legal decision-making. While in the U.S. the prospect of substituting the judiciary for technology might seem like a dystopian prospect, countries like China have implemented “internet courts.” In an article entitled “Robot justice: China’s use of Internet courts,” Tara Vasdani described China's 24-hour, 7-day-a-week Internet court system where artificially created judges appear by hologram. These judges set schedules, ask litigants questions, take evidence, and issue dispositive rulings.

As we have discussed in class, the humanity of judicial discretion and reasoning is immensely valuable for case strategy. Firms provide financial incentives in pursuit of clerks who are assumed to have insight into how a judge rules. Especially when unknown factors can carry unknown weights in what a judge does, the possibility of being able to predict is valuable for crafting case strategies. While some may welcome the prospect of bright-line rules and consistent verdicts under an AI judiciary, data-driven models may not (yet?) be able to provide context-specific reasoning and fact-intensive analysis. It is unclear what role, if any, rhetorical devices emphasized in oral advocacy training would be under these data-driven models.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AvanequePennant
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.