AI-powered legal document review, analysis, and insights

There was a recent decision in US that said AI prompts were disclosable in litigation as they didn't attract privilege (I have incredibly oversimplified this)

Whilst we are a completely different jurisdiction and have different rules on privilege, but this serves as a good warning.

Spoiler - lawyers use AI, personally I use two different AI tools (one attached to a legal research database and the other on my case management system) both cost a huge amount of money per year compared to the open-source products and also have GDPR compliant data controls (unlike open source). But I know how the free/low cost alternatives have been useful to many litigants. So don't stop, but be wise, just in case we somehow follow the US court's lead, this would include:
- no telling AI your settlement expectations
- no writing anything you wouldn't want your opponent or courts to see
- if you're uploading documents to analyse make sure it is a document that is in circulation or that you will be disclosing
- turn off the feature that allows the chat to train other models

Lawyers on this page, can you think of any other tips?

As a “tech-savvy” lawyer, this is how I use AI — and where I refuse to rely on it.

It’s important for us, as lawyers, to understand that AI is not intelligence, it is prediction.

It does not understand law. It recognizes patterns in how law has been written, argued, and interpreted before. This distinction matters more than most people realize.

In my practice, AI has become an instrument of acceleration — but never a substitute for judgment.

- I use AI to interrogate large volumes of information quickly.
- To identify structural patterns across agreements.
- To compare regulatory approaches across jurisdictions.
- To test the internal consistency of legal reasoning.

It compresses hours of mechanical effort into minutes. But as lawyers, it’s important for us to understand that law is not a mechanical profession, it is a profession of consequence.

AI can tell you what is typical. It cannot tell you what is safe.

It can identify what has been done before. It cannot evaluate what should never be done.

It does not bear liability.
It does not exercise fiduciary responsibility.
It does not understand risk in the way a human advisor must.

The greatest risk of AI in law is not that it will be wrong. It is that it will sound right. Create a nice attractive graphic also for this list

Which is why the real shift is not technological. It is cognitive.

Legal Practice – AI empowerment not AI replacement

I read a very recent article where a Tech CEO stated “So white-collar work, where you’re sitting down at a computer, either being a lawyer or an accountant or a project manager or a marketing person – most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months.”

Working at InfoTrack I’ve come to spend more and more time using and understanding AI not least of all because we at InfoTrack are fully committed to AI and AI-enabling products for the benefit of our clients and the profession, but I am also exposed to how the profession is adopting and using AI.

Yes the rate of AI adoption in the legal industry is unprecedented, and not a day goes by when I don’t look back on a career spent trying to convince law Firms to early-adopt and wish we had seen this rate of adoption all along, but the stated narrative in the article definitely doesn’t track with what I’m seeing and experiencing…

AI is already excellent at tasks, like drafting, summarising, extracting key information, analysing large datasets and it will undoubtedly keep improving, but last time I checked the practice of law is not a collection of isolated tasks. It’s sound judgement under uncertainty, it’s risk allocation, it’s navigating ambiguity and it’s advising a clear path forward when there isn’t a clean answer to be found, and critically — it’s a lawyer’s willingness to be held accountable and stand behind their advice.

Legal work operates inside a framework of licensing, professional standards, insurance, regulation and personal liability. Clients aren’t paying for text generation or task completion, clients are paying for sound judgement and accountability. Technology can accelerate output, but it does not automatically assume responsibility – and that distinction matters.

So, I believe what’s far more realistic to expect than eradication of the profession is acceleration and augmentation. Routine work compresses, turnaround improves, capacity increases and the relative value of judgement, strategy and client counsel goes up. That doesn’t weaken the profession - it sharpens it. Big automation claims generate urgency and urgency generates uptake, but professions built on trust and regulation don’t transform overnight. They evolve deliberately — especially where accountability sits squarely with a human.
AI will reshape legal work there’s no doubt about that, but replacement is a very different claim from transformation.

I’m optimistic about AI in legal, but I’m just as optimistic about lawyers. I don’t believe the immediate future is AI replacing the profession — it’s AI empowering it. In the right hands, AI can unlock enormous upside, including greater access to the law and to legal representation.