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.
In a recent Sir Henry Brooke Lecture, Lady Chief Justice Carr explored the power and significance of lawyers in society. Drawing upon Shakespeare, historical figures like Bentham and Lord Eldon, and modern research, she painted a compelling picture of how vital legal professionals are to upholding the rule of law, driving economic growth, guiding society away from costly disputes, and even shaping future judges. Yet, in an increasingly digitised world, one of the most fascinating threads in her talk was the mention of artificial intelligence as an innovation poised to transform legal work and the broader justice system.
The Value of Lawyers
From Shakespeare’s cynical quip “let’s kill all the lawyers” to Bentham’s criticisms, lawyers have long been viewed with mistrust in certain quarters. However, Lady Carr countered these scepticisms by highlighting lawyers’ true value:
- Safeguarding the Rule of Law
Lawyers and judges stand as guardians of justice, ensuring that society stays firmly grounded in the rule of law rather than arbitrary whim or tyranny. - Economic Growth and Stability
UK legal services are worth billions, generate enormous tax revenue, and attract global firms to London. Arbitration, mediation, and litigation all benefit individuals, businesses, and society at large. - Preventative Advice
One subtle but critical function of lawyers is to advise clients before matters escalate. By offering early legal support, they can minimise conflict and help individuals and businesses organise their affairs in line with the law. - Judicial Futures
Today’s lawyers, who handle practical concerns including the adoption of technology, become tomorrow’s judges. A profession well-trained in new tools and capable of independent thought ensures the judiciary remains resilient and effective.
Embracing AI
Among these reflections, Lady Carr stressed that AI could transform how legal services are delivered. It can assist in spotting patterns that lead to disputes, help refine early intervention strategies to keep conflicts from spiralling, and streamline court administration. Many large firms already integrate cutting-edge AI systems to handle tasks more efficiently, freeing solicitors and barristers to focus on nuanced, high-level legal analysis. This harnessing of technological power is a natural progression in the law’s centuries-long history of adaptation and innovation.
Comment
Lady Carr made several important observations, particularly regarding access to justice and the rule of law. For those in practice or legal education, I strongly recommend reading her entire speech. In this post, I will focus specifically on two of her important remarks relating to AI.
Firstly, concerning judicial knowledge of AI, Lady Carr stated:
“…As our courts continue to digitise and particularly given the increasing importance artificial intelligence will have in the management and administration of justice, as well as its potential role in assisting judges to carry out their role, it is essential that all judges are as familiar with it as they are with the administrative, case management, and adjudicative functions.”
This observation is fundamental. AI is rapidly permeating all stages of litigation, from pre-action advice and conferences to drafting pleadings, witness statements, submissions, and expert evidence. Judges must therefore become thoroughly acquainted with the range of large language models (LLMs) currently available, understanding precisely how these tools generate documents and form legal arguments.
Secondly, on the subject of legal education, Lady Carr raised the important question of whether AI’s capability to identify underlying causes of disputes necessitates integrating AI education more comprehensively into law degrees and vocational training:
“25. More than that, and reverting to the topic of education, do we also need to consider how we ensure that our lawyers have the necessary training and skills. This may mean revisiting the nature of legal education. Given that 21st century legal practice is and will continue to become a practice that requires an understanding of technology and, particularly, AI, do we need to ensure that all law students are required to undertake appropriate courses as part of their law degrees, their vocational training and their continuing professional development. Where insights can be gained from other subject areas might we want to consider how they can be incorporated into legal education. It is, for instance, standard practice now for universities to provide four year law degrees with one of these years spent studying law in a university in another country. The benefits are obvious. Might we want to adapt that model so that one of the four years is dedicated to studying computer science, AI, psychology, finance and so on. Some universities are already doing so. Might it be an approach that should be generalised across legal education so that all new entrants to the profession are fully equipped in these areas for developing their practices in the 21st century? And from there, for those who want to do so, to enter the judiciary in the course of their careers.”
This observation is crucial and reflects points I have previously emphasised. A key skill for emerging lawyers is the ability to safely and effectively prompt LLMs to generate rigorous and persuasive analysis and submissions. Lawyers proficient in leveraging AI’s potential may increasingly provide greater value in representing clients and supporting judicial processes compared to those relying exclusively on traditional legal methods. This will become particularly significant as AI becomes more integrated into judicial assistance and, potentially, leads to the emergence of AI Judges themselves.
What are your thoughts on this issue? The discussion continues on LinkedIn and my Substack and don’t forget to subscribe to my newsletter here for more insights and updates on emerging AI legal challenges.
