AI Is Not a Substitute for Your Attorney

People often ask, When will AI replace attorneys? My response is that AI is a powerful tool creating efficiencies in how we practice law. If used properly and ethically, it can complete many tasks that were traditionally performed by human attorneys in less time, but it is not a replacement for human attorneys, at least not yet.

AI is not licensed to practice law and cannot provide legal advice

AI algorithms do not complete the rigorous education requirements of law school. AI does not pass a bar exam or swear an oath. It does not receive training on legal ethics. AI algorithms lack professional accountability. Legal work performed by an attorney using an algorithm must always be scrutinized by the attorney because attorneys have professional accountability. You may have heard accounts of attorneys using public-facing AI to prepare court submissions, resulting in citations to invented cases and fabricated quotations referred to as “hallucinations”.  As these incidents point out, although using AI in the practice of law is not improper, the attorney is ultimately responsible for the output and must verify the existence and validity of the legal authority that AI generates.

Using AI does not establish an attorney-client relationship

Attorneys are ethically required to act in the best interests of the client and must represent the client diligently, with loyalty and competence.  AI makes no such commitment.

It is important to consider that using AI to analyze a legal issue may risk losing the confidentiality protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege. Communication with public-facing third-party platforms may not be privileged, and materials created without attorney supervision may not be protected as attorney work-product.

In their recent American Bar Association article, my colleagues, Nancy Del Pizzo and Jaana Singh, describe a recent federal ruling in the Southern District of New York finding that confidential notes inputted into a third-party platform without the direction of counsel, and which expressly trains on user data and reserves the right, per its privacy policy, to disclose data to third parties and government authorities, is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Notably, the court pointed out that the AI platform’s terms of service directly undercut the defendant’s argument in support of attorney-client privilege protection because the AI platform expressly states that it is not a lawyer, cannot offer formal legal advice or recommendations, and instead recommends consulting with a qualified attorney.

With limited exceptions, you can have confidence that your communications with your human attorney are confidential and will be protected from disclosure.

AI cannot perform at the level of human attorneys

AI is not a replacement for an attorney with years of legal training and practical real-world experience. Human lawyers use logic and a practical understanding of context to present legal arguments. It is hard to imagine two AI programs arguing a motion before a judge, or making a case before a jury, or negotiating the terms of a contract. The human element seems necessary.

Conclusion

AI is a powerful accelerator for legal work, but it is not a lawyer and does not replace the training, judgment, or ethical obligations of human attorneys. It does not create an attorney‑client relationship, may jeopardize confidentiality when used on public platforms, and its outputs must be validated by counsel—particularly where “hallucinations” or misstatements could mislead courts or clients. Your communications with your attorney remain protected, and the human element and professional accountability are indispensable.

As you adopt AI tools to analyze your legal issues, be mindful to do so under attorney supervision. It is critical to avoid inputting confidential information into public-facing systems and to be certain to have your human lawyer verify legal authorities and AI‑generated legal analyses before relying on them.