There’s been a lot of noise lately about AI “replacing” lawyers - mostly from people who’ve never drafted a contract, let alone survived a disclosure deadline. As someone who works across both law and operations, I find the conversation both fascinating and slightly unhinged.

So let’s reset.

AI won’t replace lawyers. But it is already transforming legal work - especially in areas like contract review, compliance monitoring, and early-stage litigation triage. The tools are evolving. And the real question isn’t whether law will change. It’s how fast legal professionals can adapt to the shift.

What AI Actually Does in Practice

When used properly, AI is a brilliant assistant - not a lawyer, but a tireless analyst.

For example:

  • Contract review platforms (like Kira, Luminance, and even some functions in Microsoft Copilot) can flag missing clauses, unusual terms, or compliance red flags.
  • Litigation support tools are helping identify key documents faster than ever in e-discovery processes.
  • AI-based compliance monitoring is catching regulatory risks across thousands of pages of financial or environmental documentation in seconds.

But these tools aren’t thinking. They’re pattern-matching. And lawyers still need to apply judgment, nuance, and actual legal reasoning.

Why Contracts Are a Great Use Case

Contracts are a perfect AI use case because they’re high-volume, rule-driven, and often repetitive. But every contract negotiation still requires:

  • Understanding of commercial objectives
  • Assessment of risk in context
  • Client priorities and fallback positions

AI might suggest the standard indemnity clause. But only a lawyer can spot that this specific deal exposes their client to reputational risk if that clause is accepted.

Where It Goes Wrong

What AI doesn’t do well (yet):

  • Understand nuance in tone, politics, or relational dynamics
  • Interpret undefined legal concepts like “reasonable efforts” in context
  • Detect when not to send the blunt legal email that will derail a deal

And that’s before we get into ethical problems with hallucinated content, non-disclosure of AI usage, or GDPR implications of using third-party LLMs.

So What Do We Do With It?

My advice — and my own approach — is this:

  • Train with the tools, not against them.
  • Use AI to draft, review, summarise, and structure — but never finalise.
  • Be transparent about how and when it’s used, especially in client-facing settings.
  • And most importantly: be the human that adds the legal insight.

Final Thought: The Law Doesn’t Need Robots. It Needs Better Humans with Better Tools.

The future of law is hybrid. Not “robots replacing solicitors,” but smart lawyers using smart tools to work faster, better, and with more precision.

If you’re still worried AI will replace you, here’s a thought: if AI can do your job, it wasn’t very “legal” in the first place.