I use AI tools in my practice and I’ll say that plainly, because the profession benefits more from honesty about this than from silence.
I use AI tools in my practice and I’ll say that plainly, because the profession benefits more from honesty about this than from silence.
Used well, AI saves time. That saved time can mean better service and more accessible fees for clients. But “used well” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
A few things I believe firmly:
AI is only as good as the lawyer directing it. It doesn’t know your specific circumstances, what the other side is likely to argue, or what a particular clause means for your situation. That judgment isn’t something a prompt can replace.
Output without review is not legal work, it’s a draft. The technology accelerates the process. It does not complete it.
Accountability cannot be automated. When advice turns out to be wrong, or a document fails to protect a client, the person who answers for that is the lawyer. That’s not a burden to offload. It’s precisely what a client is paying for.
The lawyers who will serve clients best aren’t the ones who reject AI or the ones who adopt it uncritically. They’re the ones who use it with discipline and remain fully answerable for everything that carries their name.