The Intersection of AI and Legal Practice
Renowned filmmaker Christopher Nolan collaborated with physicist Kip Thorne to bring ‘Interstellar’ to life, yet he reportedly refrains from using a smartphone. While Nolan explores the complexities of black holes, many of us are just trying to manage our WhatsApp notifications. The lesson here is not about rejecting technology outright but about safeguarding the intellect that wields it. Just as a director can embrace cutting-edge technology without succumbing to every digital distraction, lawyers should be similarly empowered.
Balancing Technology and Tradition
When a lawyer is posed with a challenging legal question, they typically respond with a well-reasoned argument. However, ask them for their screen-time report and you might receive a request for an extension. I count myself among those who might require such an adjournment. This is not a discourse from someone who has achieved enlightenment by reverting to a basic phone.
The key is to harness AI judiciously and recognize when to step away from technology. Embrace change without imposing mandatory enthusiasm exams on others. During my tenure with the late Shanti Bhushan, I learned the importance of consulting physical books and understanding legal principles deeply. For six years, my search engine consisted of bookshelves.
The Role of AI in Legal Research
While working with Shanti Bhushan, I suggested utilizing online resources for finding judgments. His response highlighted that while online judgments answer adjudicated questions, our task often involves interpreting and evolving the law where answers aren’t readily available. This wasn’t a license to ignore precedent but a reminder that finding a precedent isn’t equivalent to crafting an argument.
There’s a stark difference between seeking a judgment that supports a desired outcome and questioning why the law should yield such a result. Research should underpin reasoning, not mask its absence. While I wouldn’t insist on juniors replicating my years of book-based research, the lesson of intellectual independence remains invaluable.
AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement
As a first-generation litigator, I welcome the assistance AI offers in research, document review, and initial drafting. It provides young lawyers with limited support a foothold in navigating unfamiliar territory. There is no inherent virtue in spending hours rearranging paragraphs instead of understanding why an argument fails.
I encourage juniors to use AI to challenge their positions, identify unconsidered questions, and propose counterarguments. Then, delve into those responses. The true benefit lies in seizing another opportunity to think, not in finding an excuse to stop.
Adapting to Technological Changes
When the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud advocated for paperless hearings, some senior advocates, accustomed to physical briefs, initially resisted. Their hesitation was understandable, and the Chief Justice’s encouragement was well-intentioned. Both sides were navigating change, learning from each other.
Justice L Nageswara Rao, known for his preference for physical files, now navigates arbitration records on an iPad effortlessly. The medium has evolved, but the dedication remains unchanged. Decades of thinking with pen and paper don’t instantly transition to a stylus, just as using an iPad doesn’t equate to intellectual weightlessness.
Offer training without passing judgment on age or ability. Reluctance isn’t incompetence, just as enthusiasm isn’t wisdom. The same courtesy should extend to AI, allowing each individual to use it responsibly and selectively, without compulsion.
Transparency and Responsibility
When a junior submits a polished draft, hearing “This looks like AI” can be painful. It suggests, “They don’t believe I’m capable of this.” While understandable, patience is necessary before interpreting every skeptical comment as a judgment on one’s abilities.
Explain the process. Show the facts selected, the instructions given, what was discarded, and the authorities checked. A clever prompt doesn’t guarantee a correct answer, nor should we pretend AI contributes nothing. Assistance can be substantial, but so must be the lawyer’s understanding and responsibility.
The most effective response to suspicion is a calm explanation of the argument. Open the judgment, identify relevant passages, explain qualifications, and show why attractive alternatives were rejected. If AI was used, disclose it honestly and comply with applicable disclosure requirements. Good grammar shouldn’t be met with suspicion.
Focusing on Core Objectives
When running a practice, start with the client’s actual needs. A client might request a forceful notice but need to preserve a relationship. A business might seek a decisive victory but need operations to continue uninterrupted. Clarify the objective before crafting a polished answer to the wrong question.
Deliberate AI use for a specific task isn’t the same as endless scrolling. Seniors shouldn’t demand immediate replies to every message and then lament juniors’ lack of concentration. Protecting attention is a shared responsibility. Allocate time for crucial judgments, listen attentively to arguments, and allow thoughts to unfold without interruption.
Maintaining Professional Integrity
Verifying a judgment’s existence is just the beginning. Read it, examine its context, and assess its subsequent treatment. A legitimate citation can still underpin a flawed argument. Verify safeguards and authorization before uploading client material. The client’s brief isn’t experimental material just because it’s easily uploaded. Don’t attach your name to an argument you can’t defend or a factual claim you can’t source.
“Human in the loop” should describe someone exercising judgment, not merely scrolling and clicking approve. Automate routine tasks, not responsibility.
The Long-Term Perspective
Concerns about being mistaken for an AI-dependent lawyer are part of broader anxieties about public perception. As a practice grows, its progress might be attributed to ability, connections, luck, publicity, or shortcuts. Some might question ethics. Young lawyers may expend considerable energy addressing every interpretation of their success, but not every rumor warrants a response.
Patience is essential when others are learning to understand you. Young lawyers must also discern between constructive criticism and persistent negativity. Constructive criticism helps you improve, while persistent negativity tells you you’re inadequate. Let criticism refine your work, but don’t let contempt define your self-worth.
Genuine concerns about misconduct should be addressed honestly. Success is no defense against wrongdoing, just as an unkind impression doesn’t become true simply because it has an audience.
I have more faith in a consistent record of work than in labels attached to it. Perception might secure an introduction, but it can’t prepare the next case, answer difficult questions, or honor commitments. Merit must accomplish these tasks repeatedly. A lawyer can gain attention in a day, but trust is earned over years.
The Director’s Role
If AI saves an hour, invest some of it in deeper reading, discussing the case with a junior, or listening to the client attentively. Don’t automatically fill saved time with more work, leaving everyone as exhausted as before.
And allow some saved time for yourself. Read beyond legal texts, take a walk without turning it into a call, and converse with family without the phone nearby. Remember which ambitions are yours and which have been influenced by observing others.
There should be a person left at the end of professional development. As Christopher Nolan reminds us, no matter the technology on set, someone must still direct the film. Use the tools, but keep the director’s chair. Occasionally, put the phone away.
Kartik Seth is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. This column is adapted and expanded from the author’s remarks at the session “Emerging Lawyers in the Age of AI and Geopolitical Shifts” at the 39th LAWASIA Conference, held in Seoul, South Korea, in September 2026.
