Ad/Marketing Communication

This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.

1. Introduction

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, gave the keynote speach at The Digital Justice System: an engine for resolving disputes, International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), Wednesday 30 April 2025 at 4.30pm.

That speech can be read here. The Master of the Rolls offers a fascinating look at how courts might evolve in the coming years. He tackles the promise of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), and the potential for efficiency gains and improved accessibility for everyone engaged in legal processes.

2. Overview

The speaker set out a vision of a justice system that is streamlined, transparent, and more responsive to public needs. Central to this vision is the notion of a “digital first” environment where paperwork and administrative delays can be significantly reduced. The talk emphasised how technology can offer more cost-effective ways of bringing disputes to resolution and ensure that justice can keep pace with society’s evolving demands.

3. How did AI feature?

AI featured prominently as a promising tool for analysis, decision-making assistance, and pattern recognition. By automating repetitive tasks, AI could free legal professionals to focus on the uniquely human aspects of dispute resolution. However, caution was also raised regarding the need for ethical oversight, reliability testing, and safeguarding against biases in AI-driven systems. The speech hinted that while AI may well be a game-changer, it must be introduced and managed in a manner that upholds fairness, privacy, and the rule of law.

4. Comment

The question I’m asked more than any other is whether lawyers will be replaced by AI. I’m still firmly on the fence about that, but the Master of the Rolls made some interesting observations:

“AI is already capable of providing reasonably accurate legal advice. Many of you will have tried some of the dedicated programmes offering advice on employment, property and other issues. They may be scary for lawyers, but they will not actually replace them, in my view at least, since many of the issues that arise concern the explanations that need to accompany legal advice. Persuading people to accept legal advice is a peculiarly human activity.”

That comment acknowledges two critical truths simultaneously. Firstly, AI has undoubtedly begun reshaping the legal landscape. With increasing sophistication, AI-powered tools may handle routine and predictable legal questions. Although, for my part, I’d be cautious before relying on AI for employment or property advice. Even so, this development may significantly increase access to justice for many.

However, the second, and perhaps more nuanced point, emphasised by the Master of the Rolls, is the irreplaceable value of human interaction within legal practice (not a view everyone shares). Legal advice isn’t purely transactional; it involves context, empathy, strategic judgement, and the nuanced art of persuasion. These inherently human skills underpin the trust and confidence between lawyers and their clients.

Some argue that AI, as it exists now, struggles to replicate the depth of understanding and personal connection required when navigating complex or emotionally charged legal matters. There may be something to that.

Yet if that is true, how do we reconcile it with the evidence showing AI can be highly persuasive and, in some cases, even form relationships with humans? AI may lack genuine empathy or personal connection, but if it can convincingly mimic these qualities, does it matter?

These are the complicated issues we’ll have to address sooner as a profession than we may have initially anticipated. For now, it’s encouraging to note the Master of the Rolls’ balanced perspective. Maybe AI doesn’t represent a threat so much as an opportunity, prompting legal professionals to refine and emphasise the uniquely human qualities of their work. Rather than replacing lawyers, AI may empower them, freeing them to focus on the strategic, empathetic, and persuasive elements of their role, qualities that, for now, machines cannot fully replicate.

This article is part of my broader legal commentary available through my Substack newsletter.
Subscribing ensures you receive immediate updates, in-depth analysis, and exclusive legal insights as they are published.
➔ [Subscribe here to stay informed].