The conversation around artificial intelligence in law has been loud, fast-moving, and not always honest. As a practitioner across criminal, civil, and defamation law, I’ve watched the industry narrative shift from cautious curiosity to something approaching evangelism, and I think it’s worth applying the same scrutiny to that narrative that we’d apply to any claim before a court.
Last week, I had the privilege of joining a LexisNexis and Law Society of NSW panel on AI adoption in legal practice, described by LexisNexis as one of their most dynamic and interactive panel discussions. The room was full of practitioners asking the same hard questions our team asks internally every day.
Here is where I actually stand, across each of those questions.
Where AI Sits in Our Firm’s Strategy Today: AI For Lawyers
AI is a tool. A useful one, integrated thoughtfully across our practice to support research, initial drafting, and the kind of administrative work that used to consume time better spent on clients. In defamation matters, where you’re often working through significant volumes of material, it assists with early identification and categorisation. But the analysis, the judgment, the strategy, that remains entirely human, and entirely the work of the team.
What hasn’t changed is how we work together. The internal discussions, the collaborative review, the pressure-testing of arguments before they reach a client or a court, all of that continues exactly as it always has. AI speeds up the groundwork so the team can spend more time on the thinking that matters.
Are Clients Actually Demanding AI, or Are Firms Driving That Narrative?
Both, depending on the client. Some clients now send through AI-generated chronologies and supporting material before a matter has even formally begun. Others are asking us directly to use AI as a means of limiting costs, and that’s a reasonable expectation to have.
But the truth is that most clients care about one thing only: their outcome. They want the best possible result. The tools used to get there are largely invisible to them, and rightly so. Our job is to deliver that outcome with the judgment and professionalism they’re paying for, AI is one of the ways we protect the time and focus that makes that possible.
Baseline Expectation or Competitive Advantage?
In three to five years, AI adoption in Australian legal practice will be universal. The firms currently treating it as a point of competitive differentiation are not wrong, but that advantage is a narrowing window.
What won’t narrow is the advantage that comes from reputation, track record, and institutional knowledge. In criminal law, the outcome of a matter has nothing to do with what technology was used to prepare it. It depends on the quality of the argument, the strength of the relationships in the room, and the experience of the practitioner. In defamation, success turns on media understanding and case strategy, not software.
AI cannot replicate experience or team cohesion. The long-term advantage, as it has always been, shifts back to core legal strengths.
Who Carries Accountability for AI-Assisted Work?
The lawyer. Fully. Without qualification.
The responsibility begins with the lawyer who drafts the pleadings. I review all pleadings. As the principal of this firm, the responsibility ultimately sits with me. That is precisely why we run sessions on AI use across all levels, junior lawyers, paralegals, and senior practitioners alike. In criminal law, mistakes can affect a person’s liberty. In civil litigation and defamation, errors can lead to lost cases or consequences no client anticipated.
Confidence in our work comes from process, not tools. All work is reviewed by senior practitioners. Matters are discussed and pressure-tested collaboratively within the team. Technology does not dilute professional obligation. It never has.
AI For Lawyers: Where AI Governance Sits Within Our Firm
In a boutique law firm like ours, it sits with the principals, which in practice means with me. We don’t have a separate technology governance committee. What we have is a clear set of expectations about how work is produced, reviewed, and delivered, and those expectations apply regardless of what tools are used to produce it.
AI is never used blindly. LexisNexis AI is a tool we trust, but we still go the extra mile to ensure outputs are always cross-checked. All information generated is reviewed by senior practitioners before it goes anywhere near a client or a court.
Non-Negotiable Guardrails for AI Deployment
There is one non-negotiable starting point before any client information goes near an AI tool: explicit commitments around data privacy. Client information must not be stored, shared, or used for training purposes. Full stop.
This is one of the reasons we use LexisNexis, it ensures optimal privacy protection by encrypting all documents uploaded. Any tool that cannot meet that standard does not come near our practice.
Preparing for Emerging AI Regulation
We’re tracking the Law Society of NSW guidance closely and keeping an eye on how other common law jurisdictions, particularly the UK and Canada, are approaching professional conduct obligations in the context of AI.
But my honest view is that the existing framework already provides most of the answer. The obligations around competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candour to the court don’t disappear because a new technology exists. What helps us most is that our team structures and supervision practices haven’t fundamentally changed. We haven’t needed to rebuild our compliance framework, we’ve needed to apply it.
The firms that will navigate this well are not the ones with the most sophisticated AI tools. They are the ones that maintain rigorous standards, protect their culture, and understand that the technology serves the practice, not the other way around.
Does AI Challenge the Hourly Billing Model? AI For Lawyers
This is the question the profession tends to avoid, and it deserves a direct answer.
AI reducing task time does challenge traditional hourly billing. Billing the same hours for significantly faster work raises genuine ethical concerns. That tension is real and practitioners should not pretend otherwise.
But AI does not simply mean less work, or fewer people. Time saved on preliminary tasks is redirected into higher-value activities, more careful review of advice, deeper collaboration, more time spent on the strategic thinking that clients are actually paying for. Teams remain fully engaged. Human judgment remains central to the value we deliver. AI shifts effort toward more meaningful legal work rather than eliminating it.
Protecting Junior Lawyer Development
The risk here is real, and we take it seriously. Legal reasoning develops through tackling difficult, unfamiliar tasks. Key learning comes from research, drafting, and receiving critical feedback. Client interaction is an important part of skill development. Over-reliance on AI creates a genuine risk of producing lawyers who are skilled at prompting but lack independent judgment.
Our approach is clear: junior lawyers are still required to do initial research themselves. They are expected to produce first drafts before AI is used. Close collaboration with senior practitioners remains non-negotiable. AI is a support tool, not a replacement for mentorship and team-based learning.
The Leadership Behaviours That Matter Most: AI For Lawyers
Intellectual honesty. That is the most critical leadership behaviour in an AI-enabled practice.
Leaders must not oversell AI’s capabilities or reliability. Overstating what AI can do creates the conditions for avoidable mistakes. Teams need to understand clearly what AI can and cannot do, and they need to know that independent judgment is not optional, it is the job.
Equally, leaders need to protect the team culture that underpins high-quality work. AI should not be used as a reason to reduce collaboration or restructure in ways that limit the teamwork that good legal outcomes depend on. Strong legal outcomes still come from people working through problems together.
