---

Why lawyers are just like hairdressers

Lawyers, like hairdressers, will be least affected by the introduction of AI, because human judgment is central to their work, a discussion at the Law Society Future of Legal Practice summit at Blackhall Place has heard (10 January).

The legal industry has been slow to embrace AI, largely due to concerns over accuracy, trust, and privacy, the panel discussion on the ‘Law Firm of the Future’ heard.

Delayed uptake

The traditional reliance on human judgment and experience has also delayed uptake, but Matheson partner Tara Doyle said that AI can be very useful to lawyers in a ‘closed’ proprietary system, mining existing legal research.

Such systems only analyse internal data, rather than fully relying on generative AI that pulls from a broader, potentially unreliable dataset.

Doyle added that AI will also be very useful in large-scale document management, particularly in litigation and discovery.

A discussion between Doyle and MHP Sellors partner Ronan Hynes, moderated by Niamh Coyne of the Law Society, heard that AI tools are already impacting junior lawyers, often automating routine tasks that previously took up much of their time.

This is especially true in areas such as legal research, contract review, and document management. Tools are emerging that can analyse and categorize vast amounts of documents, streamlining the process of reviewing evidence and preparing cases.

However, the fundamental need for human oversight and the nuanced legal judgment lawyers provide will remain, the session heard.

The human element of legal practice — particularly in client interactions, complex legal analysis, and strategy — remains irreplaceable.

Fast and accurate

Tara Doyle commented that AI will be very useful if it can take fast and accurate meeting minutes. However, many board members will baulk at board meetings being recorded, she pointed out.

A major concern over the use of generative AI in law is its lack of reliability, since it can sometimes produce text that seems plausible but is factually incorrect.

In the legal profession, this is a significant risk because providing clients with incorrect advice could lead to serious consequences, the discussion heard.

The need for highly accurate AI models that can verify facts and maintain a high level of trustworthiness is critical before AI can be fully integrated into legal work.

Risk-averse

The legal industry is often seen as risk-averse, and it will take time for firms to build trust in AI and integrate it into their workflows.

AI’s full potential may only be realised once issues around accuracy, security, and privacy are addressed, the event heard.

The future likely lies in a hybrid model where AI enhances the work of human lawyers, but the core of legal practice remains reliant on human judgment.

The lawyer at the front end will always be needed to ensure that the AI is using credible data, Ronan Hynes said.

Law firms must also exercise caution in terms of their PII cover, since this won’t extend to mistakes made by AI, the session heard.

Alternative business models

Deregulation of the legal industry in Britain has led to a big jump in legal business, he added.

Alternative business structures will leverage technology to innovate and employ lawyers as project managers rather than salaried employees, he said.

The leaner alternative model could be called a ‘law firm on a diet’, he commented.

The lawyers agreed that the merging of the professions will grow, with niche practice barristers working directly for law firms.

The speakers said that young legal trainees in their 20s should go into the office, as much as possible, and enjoy their time there.

Working full-time from home will inhibit networking as well as the development of essential people skills, Ronan Hynes said.