What AI is already doing in law

AI has entered the legal profession more rapidly than almost any other professional field. Legal AI tools (Harvey AI, Casetext CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI, Microsoft CoPilot for legal, and others) can now perform contract review and redlining, due diligence document review, case law research, legal memo drafting, and regulatory compliance analysis at speeds and costs that compete with junior lawyers and paralegals. Magic Circle and US Big Law firms have invested significantly in these tools, and the Big Four accounting firms are expanding legal services practices built partly on AI-augmented legal work.

The tasks most disrupted are high-volume, process-driven legal work: reviewing thousands of documents in e-discovery, checking contracts against a defined standard, researching case law across large databases, and producing first-draft standard-form agreements. These tasks previously occupied significant billable hours for junior solicitors and paralegals.

What AI cannot do in law

AI cannot exercise legal judgment in genuinely novel situations, apply strategic thinking to litigation risk, manage complex multi-party negotiations, provide the advocacy of a skilled barrister in a contested hearing, or take professional responsibility for legal advice. Clients who face high-stakes legal matters (criminal defence, major commercial disputes, complex M&A) still require and will pay for human legal expertise and accountability.

The most AI-resistant legal work involves: courtroom advocacy (barristers' skills in reading a judge, responding in real time, and building an argument under pressure); strategic legal advice in complex, high-stakes matters; client relationships in emotionally charged situations (family law, employment disputes, criminal matters); and regulatory and policy work where judgment about intent and context matters as much as the letter of the law.

The future of legal careers

The legal profession is contracting at the entry level, where the highest volume of AI-substitutable work was concentrated, and continuing to grow at the strategic and advisory levels. This is compressing the traditional trainee-to-partner pipeline: fewer trainee positions are being filled because AI handles much of the work that trainees previously did. For lawyers entering the profession, developing AI competency alongside legal skills, specialising early in areas of genuine complexity, and building strong client advisory capabilities are the most important career investments.

Legal tech itself is a growing career opportunity: lawyers who understand both the legal domain and the technology layer are well positioned for roles in legal technology companies, law firm technology leadership, and in-house legal operations roles that use technology to scale legal services without proportional headcount growth.

Get real-time help in your next interview
Live Interview Help listens to your interview and surfaces personalised answers in real time. Free 20-minute trial on Google Meet, Teams, and Zoom.
Install Free on Chrome

Frequently asked questions

Will AI affect solicitors and barristers equally?
No. The impact differs significantly. Solicitors in transactional and document-heavy practice areas (real estate, corporate M&A, employment for routine matters) are more exposed to AI automation because more of their work is document-driven and process-defined. Barristers, whose work centres on advocacy, legal argument, and courtroom performance, are less immediately exposed: these skills are harder to automate. Within solicitor practice, litigation partners, strategic advisers, and those handling complex and novel matters are substantially more protected than those in high-volume, commoditised practice areas.
Is law still a good career choice in the AI era?
Yes, for the right reasons. Law remains a strong career for those who want to do complex problem-solving, client advisory work, and advocacy. The profession is changing rather than disappearing: AI is eliminating the most routine parts of legal work and requiring lawyers to add value at a higher level from earlier in their careers. This actually suits candidates who wanted to do interesting, complex legal work and found the junior years frustrating because of the volume of routine document review. Those entering law now should expect the nature of their work to be more interesting earlier than in previous generations.