AI has its place in law, but if lawyers treat it as a replacement for human judgment, they risk losing credibility, trust, and ultimately the very justice they serve.
Every generation of lawyers faces its own technological shift. The introduction of digital legal research, electronic filing, and cloud case management has all transformed how we work. None of those innovations replaced the lawyer. They enhanced our capacity. Today's frontier, artificial intelligence, should be no different in principle, yet its rapid rise has brought both profound opportunity and real danger. And if we are not careful, we will look back at this moment and see that we ignored the lessons right in front of us.
I started my legal career like many: mastering legal research, poring over precedents, and developing the instinct that only comes from years of study and courtroom experience. Those instincts, knowing how to interpret a precedent, when to challenge an argument, and how to protect a client's rights, can't be downloaded or automated. AI can surface information faster, distill documents in seconds, and highlight relevant patterns across thousands of cases. But that speed alone does not equate to understanding, accountability, or ethical responsibility.
We already see the consequences of over-reliance on AI in real cases. Courts across the United States and abroad are increasingly encountering legal filings that contain fabricated case citations and nonexistent precedents generated by AI. Judges have sanctioned attorneys and fined law firms when they failed to verify these outputs before submitting them in court. In Massachusetts, one lawyer was sanctioned for using AI-generated fictitious cases in legal motion papers, a stark reminder that courts are not tolerating this misfeasance.
These incidents have underlying causes. A growing body of data shows that AI hallucination instances, where the model confidently invents facts or precedents, remain a pervasive weakness in generative language models. Research has found that even leading AI legal tools may hallucinate at rates between 17% and 33% of the time, producing citations or assertions that simply don't exist. This is not just a technical footnote; in law, accuracy is the foundation of justice and personal reputation.
But the bigger risk is not only disciplinary. It's cultural. When segments of our profession begin treating AI outputs as inherently reliable, we normalize a lower threshold of scrutiny, and the law cannot function on lowered standards. The justice system depends on precision, on careful reading, on the willingness to challenge assumptions rather than accept the quickest answer. If lawyers become comfortable skipping that intellectual step, even once, we begin to erode the habits that make rigorous advocacy possible. The harm is not just procedural; it's generational. New lawyers watch what experienced lawyers do, not what they say, and if they see shortcuts rewarded rather than corrected, that becomes the new baseline.
This is not to suggest that AI has no place in law. When used responsibly, with human oversight, it can be a powerful tool. Legal teams are successfully incorporating AI into tasks like document review, contract analysis, and litigation preparation. In complex cases with tens of thousands of documents, AI has helped accelerate discovery and flag issues that humans might overlook. In academia as well, AI has shown promise in grading essays and providing feedback that can help educate the next generation of lawyers, but again, under human supervision.
The key distinction is between augmentation and automation. We must not be naive about what AI represents. It is not a lawyer. It doesn't hold professional responsibility. It doesn't understand nuance, ethics, or the weight of a client's freedom or financial well-being. It generates outputs based on patterns and statistical likelihoods. That's incredibly useful for ideation, summarization, and efficiency, but it is fundamentally unsuited to replace human reasoning.
To ignore this reality is to surrender the core values of our profession. Lawyers are trained not just to know the law but to apply it with judgment, integrity, and a commitment to truth. Practices that depend on AI without meaningful human oversight communicate a lack of diligence and care. They weaken public trust in our profession at a time when that trust matters more than ever.
We should also be thinking about how we prepare future lawyers. Law schools and firms must lead by example, teaching students not just how to use AI, but how to question it. They must emphasize that AI outputs require verification, context, and critical thinking. AI should supplement legal education, not substitute it. The work of a lawyer begins long before generating a draft; it begins with curiosity, skepticism, and the courage to ask the right questions.
And yes, regulation has its place. Many courts and bar associations are already developing guidelines for the responsible use of AI. These frameworks encourage transparency, require lawyers to verify any AI-assisted research, and emphasize the ethical obligations that cannot be delegated to a machine. That's progress, but it needs broader adoption and consistent enforcement.
At the end of the day, technology should push us forward, not backward. AI can make our work more efficient, but it cannot, and should not, replace our judgment. The lawyer who delegates their thinking to an algorithm risks their profession, their client's case, and the integrity of the justice system itself.
What AI will never grasp is the human texture of law, the hesitation in a witness's voice, the weight of a client's fear, the moral calculus behind every strategic choice. Those moments define our profession far more than any citation ever could. And that is why the future of law won't be written by the tools we adopt, but by the judgment we refuse to outsource.
About the Author
Lisa Parlagreco is an award-winning appellate and trial attorney recognized for her expertise in litigation and appeals, as well as a legal commentator with over three decades of experience in law. She writes regularly about the intersection of law, technology, and professional responsibility, advocating for thoughtful integration of innovation that respects the fundamental principles of justice.
