Particularly with more and more industries using AI in recruitment and redundancy decisions, G2 Legal director Daniel Stirling told Lawyers Weekly that it’s inevitable that “AI will play a larger role in legal recruitment processes going forward”.

“Many recruiters and in-house talent teams are already using a range of AI tools to help streamline their recruitment and increase efficiency. In regard to any potential risk of bias from the AI program, I think it depends on the tool in question. Some are purely to increase efficiencies in aspects of the process such as CV formatting or reference checking, [whereas] others are used in the search and selection of candidates,” he said.

“The risk is in the latter case, where AI could select or shortlist candidates based on a bias brought about by current inequities in the market. This could include selecting more male candidates for senior roles, prioritising lawyers from certain demographics or schools based on prior successes of such candidates. This could result in the perpetuation of the gender pay gap and other inequalities.

“There are many aspects of recruitment which I believe will always be best handled by humans. When interviewing a candidate, you get to know more about their skills and background, but more importantly, their career goals and what type of culture may suit them best. This is very difficult, or impossible, for a computer system to determine and analyse from a CV or application form.”

However, Burgess Paluch director Paul Burgess said AI is unlikely to be particularly useful when working with “quality” applicants.

“Aside from graduate and clerkship programs, given the relatively low volumes of applicants for law firm roles, it would seem that AI has little to offer the process when working with qualified applicants. Furthermore, the use of AI in the US has found that it often imparts bias by basing the selection of applicants upon past data, which is itself already inherently biased,” he said.

“For graduate programs, where AI could be used to streamline and assist with shortlisting, a key concern is getting the algorithm used by the AI to reflect the hiring criteria and aims accurately and then combining it with rigorous human involvement. It would seem that at this point in time, it is best used as a tool to ensure basic assessment criteria are being met by applicants before they are assessed by qualified HR practitioners.”

VIEW ALL

While it could be useful for pre-interview assessments, AI is unable to detect personality – which human recruiters and interviewers can, added Burgess Paluch senior consultant Jas Bassi.

“I think we need to limit how much we allow AI to assist in the recruitment process. While the technology is impressive, there remains a risk that the AI will actually impart biases that unintentionally cull appropriate candidates,” he said.

“While AI can be used as a tool to screen résumés and match keywords efficiently, I am yet to see AI that can assess a candidate’s soft skills, cultural fit, and other qualities.”

For this reason, Empire Group managing partner Michelle Sneesby outlined, the use of AI within recruitment will largely be driven by decision-makers.

“AI will come to play a role in the recruitment process only as much as a decision-maker allows,” she said.

“Whilst AI can potentially expedite recruitment, it does encourage unchecked bias, which could make the jobseeking process harder for candidates. Recruitment is a relationship-driven business, and you can’t replace that with AI.”

Last year, research from Monash University and the University of Gothenburg revealed that for women in tech, AI was more likely to hire them than a human recruiter. Despite this, those in the legal profession warned against implementing AI into recruitment or redundancy decisions without proper safeguards in place.

While the integration of AI into recruitment is “inevitable”, Carlyle Kingswood Global in-house legal and governance director Phillip Hunter said that “human oversight remains critical”.

“The nuanced nature of legal recruitment, with its emphasis on personal attributes and cultural fit, cannot be fully replicated by AI. The legal sector, with its complex requirements, demands a level of discernment and understanding that AI currently cannot provide. Human recruiters bring an irreplaceable depth of experience and insight into the interpersonal dynamics and ethical considerations inherent in legal roles,” he said.

“Recruitment fundamentally remains a people-centric industry. While AI can streamline certain processes and potentially reduce biases in initial screenings, it is not a substitute for the decades of experience and personal judgement that seasoned recruiters offer. AI should be viewed as a supportive tool rather than a complete replacement.

“Current AI technologies in recruitment are not yet sophisticated enough to handle the complexities of legal recruitment independently. They require further refinement and development to ensure a fair and just recruitment process. Organisations should be cautious of recruitment companies that overly rely on AI for their processes. A balanced approach, leveraging both AI efficiencies and human expertise, is essential for a comprehensive and effective recruitment strategy in the legal sector.”