Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the legal profession, offering tools to streamline processes, enhance decision-making, and improve access to justice. However, while AI promises numerous benefits, it also raises significant ethical questions that legal professionals must address. As AI technology becomes more prevalent in the legal field, lawyers, regulators, and society must navigate the evolving challenges it presents.
The rise of AI in legal practice has been remarkable. AI has become indispensable in many areas of law, from document review and contract analysis to legal research and predictive analytics. For instance, ROSS Intelligence has transformed legal research by allowing users to query vast databases of case law using natural language. This makes research faster and more accessible for lawyers of all experience levels, reducing the time spent manually sifting through thousands of cases. Similarly, platforms like Kira Systems have streamlined contract review processes. Using machine learning, Kira identifies important clauses and flags risks or inconsistencies in contracts, enabling legal teams to focus on higher-value tasks such as advising clients on complex negotiations. These technologies have not only increased productivity but also helped reduce legal costs, making legal services more affordable for clients. However, AI’s rise has not been without its downsides. While it makes legal work more efficient, it also presents unique risks that were previously unimaginable in the legal industry. Legal professionals must carefully weigh the convenience of AI tools against the potential ethical and legal implications they introduce. Ethical concerns surrounding AI in law primarily revolve around transparency and accountability. Many AI systems, particularly those based on machine learning, operate in a ‘black box’ mode, where their decision-making processes are not fully understood, even by their developers. This is problematic in a profession where precision, reasoning, and transparency are critical. Lawyers need to explain not just the result of their legal work but also how they arrived at that result. The lack of transparency is especially concerning in areas such as criminal law, where AI tools are increasingly used for predictive policing and sentencing. When courts or law enforcement agencies rely on opaque AI systems to make decisions, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to scrutinize how those systems reach their conclusions. Without clear explanations, judges, lawyers, and defendants are left in the dark. The issue of accountability is also tied to this lack of transparency. If an AI system produces a flawed or biased outcome, who is responsible? If a legal team relies on AI for research or document review and misses a critical precedent, should the blame fall on the lawyer, the firm, or the software provider? Legal professionals need to be aware of these questions as AI becomes more integrated into their practices.AI bias presents a significant legal dilemma. AI systems learn from the data they are trained on, and if that data reflects historical biases, the AI will reproduce and amplify those biases. This is particularly dangerous in the legal context, where fairness and equality before the law are foundational principles.
A well-known example is the COMPAS system, used in some U.S. states to predict recidivism rates. In 2018, ProPublica published an investigation showing that the algorithm disproportionately flagged African American defendants as high risk compared to white defendants with similar records, leading to biased sentencing recommendations. The use of biased AI in such critical decisions not only undermines trust in the legal system but also perpetuates inequality.
Bias in AI is not limited to criminal law. In commercial law, AI tools used for contract review or litigation risk assessments can also be biased if trained on data that reflects outdated or prejudiced practices. To address this, legal professionals and developers must ensure that AI systems are trained on diverse and representative datasets, and that any biases are identified and corrected through continuous monitoring.
Despite these ethical challenges, AI has the potential to significantly improve access to justice. Legal advice and representation are often out of reach for low-income individuals, creating a gap between those who can afford legal services and those who cannot. AI offers a solution by providing affordable, and sometimes free, legal assistance in certain areas.
For example, DoNotPay, an AI chatbot, helps individuals contest parking tickets, file claims for flight delays, and even sue companies in small claims court, all without the need for a lawyer. These types of tools democratize access to legal services, particularly for straightforward legal issues where the cost of hiring a lawyer would outweigh the value of the claim.
However, while current AI technology can provide basic legal guidance, it is not a substitute for expert legal advice in more complex matters. As these tools continue to develop, they may play an increasingly important role in narrowing the justice gap, particularly for underserved communities. Legal aid organizations and government bodies can further harness AI’s potential to offer more accessible legal support.
As AI continues to evolve, the legal profession will need to adapt. There is an urgent need for clear regulations and ethical guidelines to govern AI’s use in law. Current frameworks, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the EU AI Act, address some AI-related issues, including data privacy, accountability, and transparency requirements.
The EU AI Act, expected to be the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for AI, introduces a risk-based approach to AI classification, categorizing applications from minimal to unacceptable risk.
AI is transforming the legal profession in profound ways, from streamlining processes to improving access to justice. However, these advancements come with significant ethical challenges. Transparency, accountability, and bias are issues that must be addressed head-on to ensure AI enhances, rather than undermines, the core values of the legal profession.
Legal AI applications, such as predictive policing and sentencing tools, are classified as high-risk. Developers and users must comply with strict transparency, data governance, and human oversight standards. Despite these safeguards, the Act does not fully capture the unique challenges posed by AI in legal practice, where transparency and the mitigation of bias are paramount to ensuring fairness and upholding justice. Looking ahead, professional bodies like the Law Society and the Bar Council must play a proactive role in developing ethical standards for AI. This may include creating specific rules on the use of AI in case management, legal research, and client interactions, as well as defining clear lines of accountability. Furthermore, law schools and training providers should incorporate AI and legal technology into their curriculums. This ensures that the next generation of lawyers is prepared to navigate this new landscape. By remaining vigilant and developing robust ethical frameworks, the legal profession can embrace the benefits of AI while safeguarding fairness and justice for all. Catherine Chow, a postgraduate law student at BPP University in London, is passionate about the role of legal technology in shaping the future of the legal profession and improving access to justice. She actively volunteers for pro bono work to help communities in need by assisting with legal advice. The Legal Cheek Journal is sponsored by LPC Law.
