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.
Introduction
At the end of most of my presentations there is a moment for questions. For me, this is often the best part. It sparks new ideas for this blog, challenges my assumptions, and sometimes takes me in directions I had not expected. Almost without fail, however, someone will raise the familiar concern: “Are we going to be alright?” or “Will AI replace lawyers?”
These are serious questions. Much of the wider public discussion about artificial intelligence focuses on the threat of mass job replacement, and for many that remains the greatest risk. Lawyers are not immune from these worries. I am drafting a longer and more detailed piece addressing the growing claims that the law will be fully automated and that lawyers will be entirely replaced. In my view these claims are overstated. At times I wonder which area of practice the people making them work in, because their characterisation of legal practice bears little resemblance to my experience.
That analysis will take a little longer to finish (not least because I am travelling to Athens shortly), but in the meantime I want to introduce a project I have begun which may be of interest. As with everything on this blog, I prefer to share work in progress rather than wait for a final version, so please expect it to be updated regularly.
The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
I have started to collect authoritative comments on this question in one place:
The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker brings together quotes from judges, lawyers, academics, and technology experts, with details about who said them, when, and in what context. Each entry links directly back to the source, whether that is a judgment, a speech, an interview, or a publication. Readers can also see at a glance whether the view expressed is broadly positive, sceptical, or somewhere in between.
The aim is not to produce a tally of winners and losers, but to allow a clearer picture to emerge of how different professions are approaching the issue. It is striking, for example, to see how judges tend to frame the debate compared with academics, or how technology experts describe their expectations of automation compared with practising lawyers. Because the Tracker is updated regularly, it also shows how sentiment changes over time, which I think is important in such a fast-moving field.
By setting these views side by side, the Tracker provides a more balanced understanding than the bold headlines we often see. Instead of simply being told that “AI will” or “AI won’t” replace lawyers, we can trace the nuance, the hesitation, and the shifting positions among those who are closest to the question.
An invitation to readers
This blog has grown far beyond anything I expected when I first began writing it. I have been fortunate to meet thoughtful people in both law and technology who have shaped how I think about AI and its legal implications. Yet I also know that far more people read these posts than ever reach out directly. If you are reading this and you have a perspective to share, whether you are a judge, lawyer, academic, or tech expert, I would be delighted to hear from you. You can either approach me on social media or email me directly here:
contact@naturalandartificiallaw.com
Contributions need not be long. Even a sentence or two, with your name, role, and a brief statement of your view, would be enough for me to include in the Tracker. The more perspectives it gathers, the more useful it becomes, not just for me when I am asked to present on these issues, but for anyone trying to understand how different communities are approaching the question.
Keeping the record accurate
Because this is a living project, accuracy matters. Some of the people I cite may well read this blog, and if so, I would welcome any clarifications or corrections. Titles may need adjusting, sources may need updating, and there may be gaps I have missed. Like all of my trackers, it will only become more valuable if readers feel able to suggest improvements and help maintain its integrity.
My own perspective
For my part, I consider the full replacement of lawyers to be both unlikely and undesirable. What does seem inevitable is a profound transformation in the way legal practice and the administration of justice are carried out. High-volume and routine tasks such as research and document review may be largely automated. Yet the heart of legal work, i.e. advocacy, ethics, client care, and the ability to connect with human issues, is not easily replicated by machines. These elements remain bound up with human judgment, empathy, and persuasion, and I expect them to continue to be led by people rather than algorithms.
In other words, the profession will change and evolve, but it will not disappear. The challenge is not to panic about replacement but to engage thoughtfully with how technology will reshape our work and how we should respond.
I will publish a more detailed analysis of the “AI will replace lawyers” argument in due course, but in the meantime I encourage readers to treat the grand claims made by some technology companies with care. AI can undoubtedly increase efficiency, but every output requires oversight, context, and responsibility.
The real task before us is not to ask whether AI will replace lawyers, but to think carefully about how we integrate these tools into the values and principles that underpin law itself. That, I hope, is a discussion in which many of you will join me and The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker is one way to begin.
Finally, I am so grateful to those who reach out and I hope to significantly build this community. Please enter your email below if you wish to receive regular updates.
Also, follow me on LinkedIn or other social media (links above and below) so we can discuss these important issues.
Final Comment from ChatGPT5 Pro
This is where I invite a premium AI model to comment on or critique the preceding discussion. This week ChatGPT 5 pro states:
“Treat automation less as a swap‑out and more as a re‑bundling of how legal value is produced. The near‑term pattern is clear: systems will draft, search and summarise at speed; people will frame the problem, set the strategy, weigh risk, and carry the responsibility. The firms and courts that thrive will be those that design workflows explicitly—deciding which steps are machine‑led with human oversight, which are human‑led with machine support—and that pair deployment with guardrails: confidentiality and privilege controls, matter‑level audit trails, proportionate disclosure to clients when tools are used, and rigorous validation of outputs. The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker is valuable precisely because it reveals how role and incentive shape predictions, resisting easy narratives. If we invest in competence standards, ethical guidance and metrics that prize sound legal judgment as much as throughput, AI won’t replace lawyers; it will create space for more lawyering where it matters.”
