Robo-Lawyers: Is The Legal Profession at Risk?

By: Coles Owens

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is increasingly being used in the legal field, and many seem to be asking the same question: Will AI mark the beginning of the end for attorneys as we know them?[1]

On one hand, AI can increase efficiency and improve the quality of work produced[2] while reducing attorneys’ workloads, costs of litigation, and hours.[3] AI tools speed up the processes of recording and analyzing information provided by clients, contract analysis, document summarization, and case research.[4] AI is also being used to inform bail and sentencing decisions by judges.[5] Lawyers being able to complete tasks faster by using AI may drive the price of legal services down, making them more accessible and affordable.[6] This multitude of benefits has led to 79% of law firms surveyed by Barone Defense Firm reporting use of some form of AI technology in their work.[7]

On the other hand, AI may not be equipped to recognize the complexities of the work done by lawyers.[8] Legal work requires a meticulous eye trained specifically to catch the ambiguities and intricacies of the law.[9] Attorneys also have the task of helping people who may be experiencing the worst times of their lives. AI cannot imitate the empathy, advocacy, or connection that lawyers provide to their clients in these hard times.[10] AI has been shown to hallucinate and generate false facts and case citations as well.[11] These hallucinations have occurred even when using AI tools specifically designed for legal research.[12] This can result in legal sanctions for the attorney that used the AI software.[13]

Attorneys across the United States have been sanctioned or penalized for submitting documents to the court that were created using generative AI.[14] Federal courts have even found that citing non-existent cases and failing to check the validity of them constitutes a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.[15] Specifically, Rule 11 requires attorneys to “study the law before representing its contents to a federal court.”[16] When an attorney uses AI to write portions of briefs or do legal research, and then does not review or certify the citations produced by the AI, they are not fulfilling this duty.[17] This is a new issue, but the cases sanctioning lawyers for using generative AI inappropriately have become numerous.[18]

Due to the flaws of currently available AI systems, it is unlikely that the jobs of lawyers will be replaced by AI. However, AI can be used to supplement legal work and decrease the heavy workloads of attorneys.[19] Here’s the bottom-line: AI cannot work autonomously, but with careful use and strict supervision, AI will likely be extremely beneficial and evolutionary to the legal system.

 

Link to image source:

https://www.techspot.com/news/97196-robot-lawyer-present-defense-world-first-ai-defended.html

 

[1] See Baron Defense Firm, AI and the Practice of Law: Will Lawyers Be Replaced?, Baron Defense Firm (May 20, 2025), https://www.baronedefensefirm.com/blog/ai-and-the-practice-of-law-will-lawyers-be-replaced/.

[2] How Is AI Changing the Legal Profession?, Bloomberg Law (May 23, 2024), https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/technology/how-is-ai-changing-the-legal-profession/#will-ai-replace-paralegals; Hessie Jones, Risk Or Revolution: Will AI Replace Lawyers?, Forbes (Mar. 20, 2025 5:27 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/hessiejones/2025/03/20/risk-or-revolution-will-ai-replace-lawyers/.

[3] How Is AI Changing the Legal Profession?, supra note 2.

[4] Jones, supra note 2.

[5] How Is AI Changing the Legal Profession?, supra note 2.

[6] Jones, supra note 2.

[7] Baron Defense Firm, supra note 1.

[8] Jones, supra note 2.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.; How Is AI Changing the Legal Profession?, supra note 2.

[11] Faiz Surani & Daniel E. Ho, AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries, Stan. Human-Centered A.I. (May 23, 2024), https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries.

[12] Id.

[13] Baron Defense Firm, supra note 1.

[14] See, e.g., Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-CV-281, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214029 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) (issuing a penalty to attorney who used AI to produce cases and did not verify their existence); Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-07189-SB-RAO, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176528 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2024) (issuing a penalty to attorney who failed to disclose the use of AI and cited a non-existent case).

[15] E.g., Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health v. Hoosiervac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD, 2205 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31073 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025) (sanctioning attorney under Rule 11 for filing multiple briefs with fictitious case citations and failing to verify cited cases); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning attorneys under Rule 11 when they used AI to generate an excerpt of a non-existent opinion and avoided verifying the cited cases).

[16] Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 1154 (7th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

[17] Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health v. Hoosiervac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD, 2205 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31073 at *5-6 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025).

[18] Surani & Ho, supra note 11.

[19] How Is AI Changing the Legal Profession?, supra note 2; Jones, supra note 2.