AI in law: evolving ethical considerations

BPP student Catherine Chow analyses the relationship between AI and the legal profession, weighing up the opportunities and challenges this evolving technology brings

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the legal profession, offering tools to streamline processes, enhance decision-making, and improve access to justice. But while AI promises a wealth of benefits, it also raises profound ethical questions that legal professionals must grapple with. As the legal field makes increasing use of AI technology, lawyers, regulators, and society at large must navigate the evolving challenges that AI presents.

The rise of AI in legal practice

AI has become indispensable in many areas of law, from document review and contract analysis to legal research and even predictive analytics. Tools like ROSS Intelligence have revolutionized legal research by allowing users to query vast databases of case law using natural language. This makes research faster and more accessible for lawyers of all experience levels, minimising time spent sifting through thousands of cases manually.

Similarly, platforms like Kira Systems have streamlined contract review processes. Using machine learning, Kira identifies important clauses and flags risks or inconsistencies in contracts, allowing legal teams to focus on higher-value tasks, such as advising clients on complex negotiations. These technologies have not only increased productivity but also helped reduce legal costs, making legal services more affordable for clients.

AI’s rise, however, has not been without its downsides. While it makes legal work more efficient, it also presents unique risks that were previously unimaginable in the legal industry. Legal professionals must carefully weigh the convenience of AI tools against the potential ethical and legal implications they introduce.

Ethical concerns: transparency and accountability

A primary concern with AI in law is the issue of transparency. Many AI systems, particularly those based on machine learning, operate in a “black box” mode, where their decision-making processes are not fully understood, even by their developers. This is problematic in a profession where precision, reasoning, and transparency are critical. Lawyers need to explain not just the result of their legal work but also how they arrived at that result.

The lack of transparency is especially concerning in areas such as criminal law, where AI tools are increasingly used for predictive policing and sentencing (see the report from Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)). When courts or law enforcement agencies rely on opaque AI systems to make decisions, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to scrutinize how those systems reach their conclusions. Without clear explanations, judges, lawyers, and defendants are left in the dark.

The issue of accountability is also tied to this lack of transparency. If an AI system produces a flawed or biased outcome, who is responsible? If a legal team relies on AI for research or document review and misses a critical precedent, should the blame fall on the lawyer, the firm, or the software provider? Legal professionals need to be aware of these questions as AI becomes more integrated into their practices.

AI bias: a legal dilemma

Another significant ethical concern is the issue of AI bias. AI systems learn from the data they are trained on, and if that data reflects historical biases, the AI will reproduce and amplify those biases. This is especially dangerous in the legal context, where fairness and equality before the law are foundational principles.

A well-known example is the COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) system, used in some U.S. states to predict recidivism rates. In 2018, ProPublica published an investigation showing that the algorithm disproportionately flagged African American defendants as high risk compared to white defendants with similar records, leading to biased sentencing recommendations. The use of biased AI in such critical decisions not only undermines trust in the legal system but also perpetuates inequality.

Bias in AI is not limited to criminal law. In commercial law, AI tools used for contract review or litigation risk assessments can also be biased if trained on data that reflects outdated or prejudiced practices. To address this, legal professionals and developers must ensure that AI systems are trained on diverse and representative datasets, and that any biases are identified and corrected through continuous monitoring.

AI and access to justice

Despite these ethical challenges, AI has the potential to significantly improve access to justice. Legal advice and representation are often out of reach for low-income individuals, creating a gap between those who can afford legal services and those who cannot. AI offers a solution by providing affordable, and sometimes free, legal assistance in certain areas.

For example, DoNotPay, an AI chatbot, helps individuals contest parking tickets, file claims for flight delays, and even sue companies in small claims court, all without the need for a lawyer. These types of tools democratise access to legal services, particularly for straightforward legal issues where the cost of hiring a lawyer would outweigh the value of the claim.

However, while current AI technology can provide basic legal guidance, it is not a substitute for expert legal advice in more complex matters. As these tools continue to develop, they may play an increasingly important role in narrowing the justice gap, particularly for underserved communities. Legal aid organizations and government bodies can further harness AI’s potential to offer more accessible legal support.

Regulation and future consideration

As AI continues to evolve, the legal profession will need to adapt. There is an urgent need for clear regulations and ethical guidelines to govern AI’s use in law. Current frameworks, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the EU AI Act, address some AI-related issues, including data privacy, accountability, and transparency requirements.

The EU AI Act, expected to be the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for AI, introduces a risk-based approach to AI classification, categorising applications from minimal to unacceptable risk. Legal AI applications, such as predictive policing and sentencing tools, may be classified as high-risk, requiring developers and users to comply with strict transparency, data governance, and human oversight standards. However, even with these safeguards, the Act does not fully capture the unique challenges posed by AI in legal practice, where transparency and the mitigation of bias are paramount to ensuring fairness and upholding justice.

Looking ahead, professional bodies such as the Law Society and the Bar Council must play a proactive role in developing ethical standards for AI. This may include creating specific rules on the use of AI in case management, legal research, and client interactions, as well as defining clear lines of accountability. Moreover, law schools and training providers should incorporate AI and legal technology into their curriculums, ensuring that the next generation of lawyers is prepared to navigate this new landscape.

Conclusion

AI is undoubtedly transforming the legal profession in profound ways. From streamlining processes to improving access to justice, AI holds great promise for the future of law. However, these advancements come with significant ethical challenges. The issues of transparency, accountability, and bias must be addressed head-on to ensure that AI enhances, rather than undermines, the core values of the legal profession. By remaining vigilant and developing robust ethical frameworks, the legal profession can embrace the benefits of AI while safeguarding fairness and justice for all.

Catherine Chow is a postgraduate law student currently pursuing the bar course at BPP University in London. Her areas of interest include civil litigation and corporate law. She is passionate about the role of legal technology in shaping the future of the legal profession and improving access to justice. In addition to her academic pursuits, Catherine actively volunteers for pro bono work to help communities in need by assisting with legal advice.

The Legal Cheek Journal is sponsored by LPC Law.