AI’s Impact on Legal Practice:⁤ Separating Fact from Fiction

Artificial intelligence ⁣has become a⁢ major topic of discussion within the legal field in recent years. This is ⁤evidenced by legislative efforts such as the European ‍Union’s AI Act,‍ proposed AI legislation in⁣ Italy, a surge in AI-focused legal conferences, ⁤and early jurisprudence, such as the Florence court’s order of ⁤March 14, 2025, addressing AI use by lawyers.

Though, this increased attention has also led to the proliferation of misconceptions ‍and unfounded assumptions about ⁢AI’s role in law. These preconceptions, judgments formed before a thorough understanding of the subject, warrant careful examination.

Will AI Replace Lawyers?

One common concern is that generative AI could ⁤potentially replace lawyers by automating the development of legal arguments.

The argument often goes:

• A lawyer spends 10 hours on activities X ‍and Y.
• AI completes activities X and Y in 5 minutes.
• Therefore, AI’s efficiency makes it preferable to a human lawyer.

This reasoning is flawed. AI is a tool dependent on its user. An object cannot replace a subject. ⁢As some analysts suggest, lawyers who effectively use AI‍ will likely replace those who do not, similar to the impact of computers and typewriters.

The notion that an object can inherently replace a subject is a fallacy.The subject uses the⁣ object to gain an advantage⁢ over someone who does not.

Can AI⁢ Transform ‍Ineffective Lawyers into Experts?

Another misconception is that AI can bridge the gap between ⁢skilled and less-skilled lawyers, elevating the performance of those who are less proficient.

The assumption is:

• Lawyer A is highly skilled (rated ⁢10) due to dedication and time investment (X).
• AI is also highly skilled‍ (rated 10) due to its training‍ (Z).
• Therefore, Lawyer B, initially ⁣less skilled⁢ (rated 1), becomes highly skilled (rated 10) when using AI, equaling Lawyer A’s ability.

Some argue ⁤this creates an unfair advantage.⁣ However, a less-skilled lawyer may not be able to use AI effectively. Proper use requires understanding the law ‍and formulating precise prompts. Skilled professionals can ⁢leverage AI to further enhance ‍their ⁣abilities. Such as, lawyer A using AI could become even more skilled (rated 10n).⁣ Just as a high-performance race car requires a skilled driver, AI‍ requires a educated user to be effective.⁤ Inept use can even lead to negative outcomes.

The Specter of the Robot Judge

Some fear that AI could replace ‍judges, not just lawyers. However, current Italian and European legislation, including the proposed ‍AI Act, prohibits this. AI can provide support, but lacks legal authority.⁤ The evaluation of ⁢evidence, particularly discretionary assessments under Article 116 of the Civil Procedure⁢ Code,⁤ requires human judgment.

Moreover, AI cannot adequately address⁤ value-based considerations like good faith, equity, or nuanced‍ human factors such as emotional state ‍in criminal law. However, AI could streamline certain tasks, such as calculating procedural deadlines or statutes ⁢of ⁤limitations.

Some ⁢legal provisions, often termed “scientific”⁣ by legal scholars, involve straightforward calculations. for example, Article 2 of the Civil Code sets the age of majority at 18. This requires a simple calculation. subjectivity and objectivity should coexist⁣ in a constant dialectical tension, as⁢ Scalisi argues, forming part of the same hermeneutic procedure.

Our legal system relies on ⁢a ⁣balance: elected officials create laws,which are than applied by judges ⁣to citizens. This sequence—subjects -> object -> subjects -> subjects—ensures the centrality of the person. If objectivity dominates, objects will control ‍subjects, undermining humanity.

Will Lawyers Become Mere AI Supervisors?

It’s been suggested that lawyers will ⁣simply oversee AI-generated legal arguments. ⁢This is unlikely. Lawyers retain duty for case strategy, issue identification, timing of filings,⁢ client communication, and more.

Even if lawyers only verify AI-generated documents, this is comparable to using standard legal forms or junior staff drafting routine documents.

AI Access Limited to Large Firms?

Some argue that only large law firms can afford AI, creating economic discrimination.Though, various affordable AI options exist, frequently enough costing less than traditional legal databases. AI can empower even small firms.

AI presents an prospect for growth, not a limitation.

The Problem of AI “Hallucinations”

Concerns exist about AI “hallucinations,” where AI tools fabricate data, including nonexistent laws, court decisions, or scientific details. A case in Florence involved ⁢potential‍ liability under Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Code due to AI-generated inaccuracies.

A new York law firm was sanctioned for ⁢submitting AI-generated documents with nonexistent legal citations. This issue primarily affects general-purpose AI tools like Google’s Gemini AI, which handle diverse topics. ⁣AI hallucinations are less prevalent⁣ in specialized AI systems trained⁢ specifically on legal data and validated⁤ by legal professionals or research centers.

The Future of AI and Legal Work

By addressing common misconceptions, we can move beyond fear and embrace the ⁢potential ⁢of AI in the legal field. ⁣Overcoming prejudice and seeking truth is ⁣the first step toward understanding and harnessing the power of this new technology.