It’s not quite lawyer robots, but AI is already profoundly reshaping the way the courtroom works. Paul Armstrong tells us how
AI is already reshaping the legal industry – just not in the way most expected. While early speculation focused on whether robot lawyers would replace human solicitors, the real shift is far less obvious and far more disruptive. AI-powered legal research, contract analysis and litigation forecasting are already in play, often behind the scenes. And with half of all employees globally using AI without employer approval – so-called shadow AI – many law firms are facing an uncomfortable reality: AI is already inside the building, whether they regulate it or not.
Hill Dickinson’s recent AI crackdown is just the beginning. While some firms restrict AI use outright, others are cautiously integrating it, recognising that AI isn’t just a tool – it’s an accelerant. Those who ignore or resist it entirely risk being outpaced by competitors leveraging AI-driven legal insights, data analytics and even judge-specific persuasion models to gain an advantage in court.
Shadow AI is the risk no-one sees
The biggest challenge for law firms isn’t AI itself – it’s the unregulated, unsanctioned use of it. Lawyers under pressure to produce work faster are already turning to AI tools, whether or not their firms allow it. According to Software AG, 50 per cent of employees across industries are using AI without official approval, often by copying case documents into ChatGPT, Deepseek or Grammarly. In law, that’s a huge liability.
Law firms that assume client confidentiality is airtight may already have unknowingly exposed sensitive legal documents to external servers, as many AI tools store or even process uploaded content for further model training. The moment a confidential case file is pasted into an AI chatbot, the firm may have breached client privilege. And it’s not just a data security issue – AI’s tendency to “hallucinate” false information is another hidden liability. A well-written, authoritative-sounding legal precedent means nothing if it was entirely fabricated by an LLM. If a firm submits an argument based on an AI-generated case that never existed, who takes the fall?
Beyond immediate malpractice risks, there’s also the question of regulation. Governments (depending on where you are in the world) are moving fast to impose transparency requirements on AI use, especially in professional sectors like law. Firms that don’t yet have an AI compliance policy may already be violating upcoming legislation on disclosure and ethical AI use. The worst-case scenario? A regulatory blindside that forces an entire firm to overhaul its workflow overnight. Expect the EU to be more cautious than the US etc.
Firms should see AI as an asset not a threat
While some firms are reacting with fear, others are weaponising AI to their advantage. The ones getting ahead are those treating AI not as a gimmick, but as an efficiency multiplier.
Legal research that once took weeks is now done in minutes, with AI-driven tools sifting through thousands of case files to surface relevant precedents in record time. Some firms are going even further, integrating AI-powered litigation forecasting, where machine learning models analyse past case rulings to predict potential outcomes with increasing accuracy.
Startups like Rhetoric are pushing this even further, developing AI models that don’t just predict rulings but actually tailor legal arguments to specific judges. The logic is simple: match the linguistic and rhetorical style of the judge, and your odds of winning the case go up. Early trials suggest this approach can improve litigation success rates by 20 per cent or more. If AI-assisted persuasion becomes the norm in courtrooms, firms that ignore these tools risk being outmanoeuvred by those that don’t.
In transactional law, AI is already rewriting the rules on contracts. Contract automation is advancing beyond basic template generation – modern AI models now redline agreements, optimise terms,and even flag unfavourable clauses in seconds. Lawyers who once spent hours poring over fine print are now getting instant AI-driven risk assessments, making negotiations faster and more precise.
Outside of corporate firms, AI is also reshaping access to justice. Platforms like Donotpay and Courtroom5 are automating legal services, helping individuals challenge parking fines, fight consumer disputes and navigate small claims courts – all with minimal human intervention. The idea that legal representation must be expensive and exclusive is already under threat. The firms that adapt will find new ways to scale their services, while those that resist may find themselves undercut by AI-driven alternatives.
Who’s responsible if the tech gets it wrong?
As AI takes on a larger role in legal decision-making, the liability debate is heating up. If an AI-generated legal document contains errors, who is responsible?
Right now, the courts haven’t caught up. If an AI drafting tool inserts a fabricated case precedent into a court filing, the lawyer who used it is still accountable. The argument that “AI made the mistake” won’t hold up in court. But what happens when AI is more deeply embedded in legal workflows? If a firm integrates an AI model into its case review process, does liability shift to the firm itself? What about the AI provider – should software companies bear some responsibility for AI-driven legal errors? Ironically, the courts need to decide.
The grey areas AI has created are already reshaping professional indemnity insurance. Expect to see new insurance policies specifically covering AI-assisted malpractice as firms look to shield themselves from the risks of AI-generated inaccuracies. Some regulators are also pushing for mandatory AI disclosure in legal filings, meaning courts may soon require firms to declare when AI has been used to generate or assist in case preparation.
The copyright debacle continues
Beyond liability, there’s another looming battle: who owns AI-generated legal work?
Law firms relying on AI-powered research tools may not realise that much of the content they’re pulling from is itself derived from copyrighted legal texts. This raises complex questions: If an AI tool is trained on proprietary legal documents, does that create an intellectual property issue? If an AI-generated contract contains passages lifted from past legal filings, who holds the rights to that content?
Regulators are already moving on this. The UK and EU are hearing copyright cases against AI companies, with potential rulings that could restrict how AI-generated legal content can be used. If courts decide that AI models trained on copyrighted legal materials are producing derivative works, firms may have to rethink how they integrate AI-generated research into their practice.
Where AI in law is actually heading
The AI revolution in law is just getting started, and within the next decade, its presence will only deepen. Law firms will develop proprietary AI models trained on their own casework, enabling hyper-specific litigation strategies that refine legal arguments with unprecedented precision. In the courtroom, AI will act as real-time litigation support, providing instant case law references, exposing weaknesses in opposing arguments and even generating AI-powered rebuttals on demand. Courts themselves will integrate AI to cross-check legal arguments, verify citations and automate parts of the judicial review process, ensuring accuracy while raising new questions about oversight. As AI reshapes legal workflows, governments will respond with a wave of new regulations, requiring firms to disclose how AI is used in filings and case preparation, adding a new layer of compliance to an already complex profession. Perhaps the most fundamental shift will come in how legal services are valued – AI automation will challenge the traditional billable hour model, forcing firms to rethink pricing structures and redefine the economics of legal expertise.
AI isn’t waiting for law firms to catch up; it’s already reshaping the legal landscape, whether firms like it or not. Shadow AI figures prove that resistance is futile: banning AI will only drive it underground, increasing risk without removing usage.
Firms that actively govern and integrate AI will thrive, while those who resist will find themselves playing defence in an increasingly AI-powered legal world. The question isn’t if AI belongs in law – it’s who decides how it gets used? Or maybe the bigger question is will your firm choose to lead, or will you be forced to follow?
Paul Armstrong is founder of TBD Group, TBD+ and author of Disruptive Technologies