Author: Akhilendra Singh Student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
To the Point
Artificial Intelligence is already shaking up the legal world in ways that once sounded like science fiction, just as it has in banking and healthcare. On the plus side, AI tools can zip through routine tasks such as reviewing contracts, checking due diligence, doing research, and drafting documents far faster than any team of paralegals ever could. By chipping away at those time-consuming chores they save firms money, lower client bills, and give people who could never afford a lawyer at least some access to credible legal information. Yet the upside comes with a dark edge: if the data the system learns from is lopsided, its advice can reinforce the same old biases in bail or sentencing; layered algorithms can suggest a course of action that even the programmer can’t clearly defend, putting the right-to-a-fair-trial at risk; and a glitch, or harmless-sounding hallucination, might toss out a made-up case citation that the junior associate blindly cites in court. None of these problems are imaginary, as the recent incident in New York shows where lawyers were sanctioned for leaning too heavily on AI to build their briefs. In addition, AI lacks the context, judgment, empathy, and ethical thinking that are critical to legal practice. AI may then be an extremely helpful aid to accelerate legal work but can also be perilously ineffective if it becomes a replacement for human review or is carried out lacking in control. As the world learned with AI in medical diagnosis, where its ability to assist doctors is remarkable but that of causing apocalyptic mistakes cannot be questioned, this double-edged nature renders AI in law a two-edged sword that has to be employed judiciously, with professional standards being the guide, and within robust ethical and legal protections.
Abstract
AI is already moving into the legal world, and its arrival feels hard to stop. Tools now speed through work once handled by fresh associates or busy paralegals-scanning cases, sifting through discovery files, spotting patterns in precedent. Because machines work faster and charge less, law firms can offer clients a chance at cheaper, more widespread service. Yet the same technology carries serious dangers: too much faith in automation may dull essential human judgment, opaque algorithms can sidestep fair process, and biased training data might echo old forms of discrimination. Legal AI is powerful and risky, echoing its role in medicine, where sharper diagnoses sit alongside rare, life-threatening errors. This piece shows both sides of the coin by comparing legal tools to their use in other fields, and it argues that steady supervision, clear ethics, and firm rules are key to steering the force toward, rather than away from, justice.
Use of Legal Jargon
The entry of artificial intelligence into the legal field regularly bumps into several bedrock principles that have guided the profession for decades. A key example is the idea of due process, rooted in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which promises individuals fair treatment throughout judicial proceedings. When AI systems deliver unclear, opaque answers-often called black box algorithms-the affected party struggles to challenge or even understand the outcome, putting that promise at risk. Another important concern is vicarious liability; if a law office adopts faulty, AI-generated advice and a client suffers, the firm may still be held responsible for professional negligence. Because of this, any lawyer who leans on such technology without careful review hazards falling short of the reasonable standard of care, a core duty that demands competence in every facet of representation.Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, can be breached when biased, historical data trains A I models. Imagine a sentencing tool that, because of skewed inputs, recommends harsher penalties for poorer defendants; that outcome plainly favours wealthier groups. The 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act introduces “data fiduciary” duties, meaning anyone who handles personal data, including lawyers using A I, must justify every use, limit data to a clear purpose, and secure informed consent. Because the law still views an A I program as a tool and not an original author, questions of ownership arise when the machine drafts a contract or a pleading. Finally, if an algorithm makes a key decision yet explains nothing and blocks an appeal, which says every party should have a chance to be heard. These ideas are more than legal theory; they are the framework Indian regulators and courts will rely on as they draft rules for responsible, accountable A I in the justice system.
The Proof
There is now a wealth of evidence that AI has the potential to revolutionize the legal industry, but it also has significant limitations. According to a 2023 McKinsey report, AI can automate up to 23% of a lawyer’s work, which greatly reduces the amount of time spent on repetitive legal research, document review, and drafting. This directly helps clients by saving money and time. AI-powered legal research platforms can scan thousands of cases and statutes in a matter of seconds, as shown by tools like LexisNexis Context, Casetext, and ROSS Intelligence, which improves the accuracy and efficiency of attorneys.Contract review tools like Kira Systems can trim due-diligence time by up to 90%, letting lawyers focus on strategy and opening legal help to more clients. But the flip side of this progress is already glaring; in May 2023, two New York attorneys were penalized after submitting a brief filled with fake case cites generated by ChatGPT-an all-too-frequent glitch known as hallucination where the software sounds credible yet invents evidence. Likewise, a 2024 study from the University of California, Berkeley found that U.S. pretrial risk scores, including the widely used COMPAS, unfairly suggest tougher sentences for people of color when every other detail is equal-a warning bell for any country, India included, that might deploy the same tool in its strained court system.A recent report in the Georgetown Law Technology Review (2024) points out that several AI contract-checking tools still stumble over distinctly Indian legal ideas, such as the public-policy doctrine laid out in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act; as a result, these programs marked some perfectly fine contracts as invalid. Courts and regulators are right to question whether tools that struggle with local nuances should sit in the lawyers toolbox at all. Similar slip-ups in other sectors add to those worries. After years of hype, the AI-driven cancer-analysis program IBM Watson Health was eased off the market in 2022 when it kept steering doctors toward risky or pointless therapies.
Case Laws
- Internet and mobile association of India V. RBI (2020)
The Supreme Court overturned the RBI’s cryptocurrency banking ban, reaffirming that regulatory measures must strike a balance between innovation and appropriate protections. Although it isn’t specifically about AI, it demonstrates how the Court defends cutting-edge technologies when rules go too far, which is pertinent as India examines legislation tailored to AI.
2. Authors Guild V. Google, Inc. (2015)
Fair use of copyrighted works was clarified by the U.S. case on book digitization. In a similar vein, AI training on legal materials needs to respect copyright to avoid being accused of infringement.
3. COMPAS Bias Litigation, U.S (State V. Loomis (2016))
The defendant contested the opacity of an AI risk assessment, which is instructional while being foreign. Although the court acknowledged that AI could support judgments, it made clear that inexplicable algorithms cannot be used as justification for harsh punishments.
Conclusion
In countries like India, where countless citizens struggle to pay for a lawyer, artificial intelligence could reshape the legal world by making justice cheaper, faster, and easier to reach. That same technology, though, can just as easily automate unfair outcomes if it is not carefully watched. Just as medical advances sometimes falter because of real-world problems, AI in law will deliver real gains only when it is used under strong rules and a clear sense of ethics. Attorneys should remember that no set of algorithms, however sophisticated, can replicate human judgment, empathy, or the ability to grasp subtle context behind legal facts. Because of this, any firm or court that starts to use AI should require regular checks of its results, routine bias reviews, and ongoing training so staff can spot and fix errors.The legal community can welcome AIs sweeping potential and still protect the justice, transparency, and accountability that every fair court relies on, but to do so it must study what worked and what failed when the same technology entered fields like health care. As long as the integration is measured and mindful, AI has every chance to strengthen the system rather than add fresh harm.
FAQS
1. Can AI replace human lawyers entirely?
No. AI is capable of automating repetitive jobs, but it lacks the ethical judgment, empathy, and contextual awareness needed for advocacy, negotiation, and courtroom procedures.
2. Is AI- based legal advice regulated in India?
As of right now, there are no laws specifically governing AI. Indirectly applicable, nevertheless, are the DPDP Act, the IT Act, and the Bar Council’s regulations against the unlicensed practice of law.
3. How can AI perpetuate bias in legal decisions?
Systemic inequality may be strengthened by AI educated on skewed historical data. An AI model might suggest similar tendencies, for example, if previous bail decisions were discriminatory.
4. Are there guidelines to use AI generated contents in Court?
There are no official guidelines in India. Courts expect attorneys to check their filings; using AI to make mistakes is not acceptable and could be considered professional misconduct.
5. How can AI improve access to justice in India?
AI can truly reshape access to justice in India by cutting costs, bridging language gaps, and putting legal information within reach of millions who cannot pay for a lawyer. For instance, AI chatbots now answer basic questions about rights and procedures in regional languages, guiding rural and marginalised people through the law. Similar tools draft simple documents—affidavits, rent agreements, complaints—saving time and money for individuals and small businesses. Machine translation then turns judgments, statutes, and contracts into local tongues, narrowing India’s huge linguistic divide. Searchable, plain-language databases help citizens, activists, and grassroots organisations make sense of complex case law. Data analysis allows NGOs and pro bono lawyers to spot patterns like illegal evictions or wage theft, so they can act more quickly and effectively. Courts can adopt AI scheduling to set hearing dates intelligently, cut adjournments, and soften delays that keep justice out of reach for far too many litigants.These advantages come with a price, though: AI systems must deliver objective, factual information, preserve user privacy, and refrain from taking the place of human attorneys in situations requiring complex legal counsel or in-court representation. AI has the potential to be a potent equalizer in India’s legal system when properly developed, helping to realize the promise of justice for all made in the constitution.
