Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Lawyers?: Myth, Reality, and the Limits of the Legal Profession

Part 1

Just a few years ago, the question of whether artificial intelligence could perform the work of a lawyer seemed more like a futuristic scenario than a realistic possibility.

Today, the situation has changed dramatically. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and many other specialized AI platforms can analyze contracts, prepare legal memoranda, research case law, and assist in drafting procedural documents within minutes (roughly the same amount of time it takes a lawyer to remember where they once saw that particular precedent “somewhere in previous case law”).

Against this backdrop, one question is being asked more frequently than ever: will artificial intelligence lead to the disappearance of the legal profession?

The short answer is no.

Artificial intelligence is not eliminating the legal profession; rather, it is transforming it faster than any technology has done over the past several decades.

The legal market has already undergone significant changes. Today, most international law firms use AI to perform routine tasks, including contract review, legal research, first-draft document preparation, due diligence, corporate structure analysis, and the automation of internal processes.

Tasks that previously required several hours of work by a junior lawyer can now be completed in a matter of minutes.

Importantly, the world’s largest law firms are not fighting technological advancement — they are actively investing in it.

In 2026, one of the world’s largest law firms, Kirkland & Ellis, announced a $500 million investment in the development of its own AI platform designed to automate legal processes (Reuters, Financial Times).

This demonstrates an important trend: leading market players do not view artificial intelligence as a competitor. They view it as a tool for increasing efficiency.

1. Why AI Still Cannot Be a Lawyer

Despite its rapid development, artificial intelligence has a fundamental limitation: it does not truly understand the law.

AI systems analyze vast amounts of data and predict the most likely answer. However, they are not capable of fully assessing context, client business objectives, reputational risks, litigation strategy, or the commercial consequences of a particular legal decision.

A lawyer is responsible for much more than the accuracy of a document.

A lawyer is responsible for its consequences.

This responsibility remains one of the key distinctions between a legal professional and an algorithm.

2. The Case That Became a Wake-Up Call for the Legal Community

In 2023, U.S. attorneys used ChatGPT to assist in preparing filings in the case of Mata v. Avianca.

The AI generated several court decisions that appeared entirely legitimate.

The problem was that none of them actually existed.

The attorneys failed to verify the information and submitted the documents to the court. As a result, the court imposed sanctions and specifically emphasized that the use of artificial intelligence does not relieve lawyers of their professional duty to verify legal authorities and sources.

The case became one of the first widely publicized examples of what is now known as AI hallucinations — situations in which artificial intelligence produces convincing but inaccurate information.

And while such mistakes may be relatively harmless for a student, for a lawyer they can potentially cost a client millions of dollars.

3. A New Challenge: Who Will Be Liable for AI Errors?

One of the most important legal questions of the coming years concerns liability for decisions made with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Imagine the following scenario. A company uses an AI system to conduct counterparty due diligence. The algorithm mistakenly identifies a reliable business partner as high-risk, causing the company to lose a valuable contract. Or conversely, the system fails to detect significant risks, resulting in substantial financial losses.

The immediate question becomes:

• Who is responsible?
• The software developer?
• The company that used the system?
• The executive who relied on the AI-generated recommendation?

These issues are already being actively discussed by regulators around the world.

For now, the general principle remains unchanged: responsibility rests with people and organizations, not with algorithms.

4. Copyright: Who Owns AI-Generated Content?

Another legal issue gaining increasing attention concerns intellectual property rights.

If a designer creates a logo, a writer authors a book, or a photographer takes a photograph, authorship is relatively straightforward.

But what happens when the result is generated by artificial intelligence?

Imagine a company commissions a brand book, logo, and marketing materials using generative AI and subsequently invests significant resources into promoting the brand.

Several years later, a dispute arises regarding ownership of those materials. Who owns the rights?

• The user?
• The AI developer?
• The client?
• Or can such content be protected by copyright at all?

At present, there is no universally accepted answer, even among the world’s leading jurisdictions.

As a result, intellectual property issues in the era of artificial intelligence have already become a distinct area of legal practice.

‍

‍