The courtroom of the future is digital, challenging many centuries of legal tradition via automated systems with artificial intelligence (AI). Automated systems, together referred to as LegalTech, now provide legal services beyond the direct involvement of qualified legal teams. Clients now find said services easier and faster, and likely more affordably. This all results from available tools streamlining complicated legal procedures. These tools include document preparation, case outcome prediction, and also large-scale data analysis (Branovitskii, 2025).
Work that previously required hours of human labor by law experts is becoming more efficient due to streamlining by AI tools. Platforms like Kira Systems and Luminance can review and analyze key data from contracts and documents at scale, significantly reducing the time needed for routine legal tasks (Kira Systems, n.d.; Luminance, n.d.). This changes how lawyers operate, allowing them to focus on their more complex tasks at hand rather than spend their time on standardized procedures.
Another area of legal technology involves the use of online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms. Agreements may be enforced automatically by smart contracts that blockchain technology drives, as platforms like Modria ease the digital resolution of disputes. This specific platform manages case progression, suggests next steps, and sometimes proposes settlements through algorithms and rule-based systems (Modria, n.d.).
These innovations make things faster and simpler, however they also raise ethical and legal concerns, particularly related to the algorithmic decision-making and error responsibility. Artificial intelligence, no matter how advanced, could be inadequate for the situations requiring factual conditions that are particular. In complex situations, standardized algorithms may miss important details. In LegalTech’s case, they may overlook facts of legal significance that appear insignificant, and they may even “invent” examples that don’t exist in order to reinforce their claims. Real examples of such cases exist. A New York attorney who used ChatGPT as a means to find precedent cases ended up facing a court hearing of his own, as the AI tool fabricated six non-existent cases (Armstrong, 2023). The tools mentioned above can quickly and reliably handle large amounts of routine work, but they cannot completely replace the judgment and analysis that attorneys provide. Efficiency must never come at the cost of justice, ethics, or professional responsibility.
LegalTech is here to stay. Technological innovation must be balanced with human judgment, so lawyers need to remain central to interpret, guide, and safeguard the law. Yet, as AI and automation take on more routine legal work, the question that remains is: How can society be sure that efficiency in legal services does not sacrifice justice, ethics, and the advice that only humans provide?
References
Armstrong, K. (2023, May 28). ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769
Branovitskii, K. L. (2025). Artificial intelligence and LegalTech: Risks of transforming the legal profession. Digital Law Journal.
Kira Systems. (n.d.). AI contract review software. Retrieved from https://www.litera.com/products/kira
Luminance. (n.d.). Legal-Grade™ AI. Retrieved from https://www.luminance.com/
Modria. (n.d.). Online dispute resolution. Retrieved from https://cedr.modria.com/
Such a fascinating post! My biggest takeaway from reading this was how LegalTech appears to be changing not just the legal industry but also how the general public may interact with the legal system. On one hand, I think it’s great that automation will make legal services more accessible and reasonably priced because so many people put off seeking justice due to the expense and time involved. Both clients and lawyers will benefit if AI systems are able to manage the heavy, repetitive tasks.
However, I must admit that your example of the New York lawyer using made-up cases got me thinking. When technology “goes wrong”, it demonstrates how brittle trust can be, and in the legal system, even a minor mistake can have huge consequences. Efficiency sounds fantastic, but what happens when justice is reduced to an algorithm?
I am curious: do you think there will be ongoing resistance to the idea of AI in the courtroom, or do you think people will eventually become more accustomed to these systems?