Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
AI is no longer a future consideration for the legal profession; it is already reshaping how legal work is performed, writes Aiden Warneke.
While its efficiency gains are undeniable, recent developments suggest that the profession must urgently confront a more pressing question: how to use AI without compromising accuracy, accountability, and professional judgment.
Where AI adds value
While the benefits of AI are clear, its use also raises important challenges, both for legal professionals and for injured people who rely on sound legal advice. I will admit that I was initially sceptical when AI tools first began rolling out. Over time, however, I’ve come to recognise the real value they can offer when used properly. For tasks like document review, legal research, and case management, AI can significantly reduce the administrative load and free practitioners to focus on more substantive legal issues.
Harvard Business School (HBS) has done a research paper which supports the position that AI is being used for low-level administration tasks like booking work trips. HBS suggests that AI should be treated as a personal assistant, complementing, not substituting, human expertise.
Similarly, Jeremy Yang’s paper, The Adoption and Usage of AI Agents: Early Evidence from Perplexity, finds that professionals are using AI primarily to improve productivity and support learning outcomes.
This research reinforces the view that AI should not be relied upon to replace professional knowledge or judgment. Instead, its greatest value lies in enhancing human work by streamlining administrative processes and enabling professionals to focus on higher-value tasks.
The emerging risks for practitioners
That being said, AI is far from perfect and doesn’t always produce accurate legal information. Because AI relies on algorithms and data in order to “learn”, it can sometimes generate incorrect or misleading results. Even the way a question or prompt is framed can influence the output. This creates a real risk if AI-generated material is treated as a substitute for proper legal analysis or professional judgment.
Lessons from recent court scrutiny
The recent Federal Circuit and Family Court matter involving AI-generated citations is more than an isolated error; it highlights a broader risk. Courts are signalling an expectation that practitioners remain fully accountable for all material filed, regardless of whether AI tools were used in its preparation. Reliance on AI will not mitigate professional responsibility.
Client use of AI
As practitioners, we need to be aware that clients are increasingly using AI to help draft their enquiries or claims. While this can be useful, it raises an important issue: if a client provides a document generated with AI, can we reasonably treat it as their instructions if they have not properly reviewed or understood it?
This is something we need to consider carefully, particularly when thinking about how the matter may progress, such as preparing for a compulsory conference or even trial. If the document does not truly reflect the client’s own account or understanding, it may create problems later on.
AI can be helpful for clients in structuring their instructions, but we as practitioners need to be questioning clients and reading the content carefully, to ensure we are comfortable accepting that content as the client’s genuine instructions. Ensuring the client has reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of the material is essential. AI needs to be used as a tool to help, but not as a replacement for a person’s thoughts.
What could come next?
Most legal practitioners are familiar with periods of intense workload, where time pressures can be overwhelming. In those moments, AI may feel like a convenient shortcut, or even a professional “clone”. However, AI should only ever be used as a starting point or foundation to build on. Human oversight remains essential. Legal professionals should always independently verify AI-assisted work and apply their own expertise and judgment before relying on any information produced.
Where a client uses AI to input information and arrives feeling fully informed before speaking with us, it is important we acknowledge that while AI can be a useful starting point, it is not always accurate. AI often generates responses based on the way a question is framed, meaning it can produce information that aligns with the user’s assumptions rather than the true position. As a result, clients may place confidence in information that is, in fact, incorrect.
This creates an additional layer of work for practitioners, who must then verify the accuracy of that information and provide clear advice on its reliability. It reinforces the ongoing need for careful human review and legal expertise, particularly in the context of personal injury claims, where accuracy and precision are critical.
AI has undoubtedly had a significant impact on personal injury law, offering new levels of efficiency and analytical support. At TSP, we are continuing to adapt to the ever-growing world of AI – it is used to assist with admin, consistency and structure across the firm; however, the knowledge, experience and expertise of our legal team is what provides the greatest support to our clients as they navigate their individualised claim process.
It is crucial for both practitioners and clients to understand AI and its limitations. By striking the right balance between technology and careful human review, the legal profession can take advantage of AI’s benefits while avoiding its potential pitfalls. It is critical that firms are mindful of the use of AI, particularly to ensure privacy standards are met.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, maintaining this balance will be essential to delivering accurate, ethical, and high-quality legal advice.
Aiden Warneke is a lawyer with Travis Schultz & Partners.
