A recent post from a fellow litigator caught my attention — and struck a chord. It described a troubling trend: lawyers relying entirely on large language models (LLMs) to craft litigation strategies, generate timelines, and even produce legal analysis, without verifying the sources or applying their own judgment. The result? Persuasive but dangerously flawed arguments, often built on fabricated or irrelevant citations.

This isn’t just a cautionary tale — it’s a wake-up call.

As someone who works in complex, high-stakes environments, I see the value of LLMs. They can be powerful tools for brainstorming, summarizing, and organizing information. But they are not — and should never be — a substitute for professional judgment, ethical reasoning, or legal expertise.

Yet, in my humble opinion, this conversation also misses a deeper point: the 200+ year-old litigation process is no longer sustainable in its current form. We cannot continue to expect individuals and organizations to sit around for years waiting for a court-based resolution. Not only must the pace of justice evolve — the entire legal dispute resolution infrastructure must be redesigned to meet the needs of a modern, fast-moving society.

1. What Parts of Legal Practice Are Most Vulnerable to AI Transformation?

While AI should never replace legal reasoning, there are areas of legal practice — especially procedural and administrative — that are particularly vulnerable to automation and ripe for innovation:

- Document Review and Summarization. AI tools can already process thousands of pages of discovery material, contracts, or affidavits in minutes. This is especially useful in early case assessment and internal investigations.

- Chronologies and Fact Timelines. Generating timelines from large volumes of documents is a task well-suited to AI. However, human oversight is essential to ensure relevance, accuracy, and context.

- Legal Research (with Caution). AI can assist in surfacing relevant case law and statutes, but it must be paired with rigorous verification. Hallucinated citations remain a serious risk.

- Procedural Drafting. Routine procedural documents — such as notices, affidavits of service, or scheduling orders — can be drafted efficiently with AI assistance, freeing up time for more strategic work.

- Dispute Resolution Interfaces. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms powered by AI are emerging as alternatives to traditional litigation. These systems can guide parties through structured negotiation, mediation, or arbitration — often faster and more affordably than courts.

2. Rethinking the Infrastructure of Justice

The legal system’s architecture — from filing procedures to courtroom scheduling — was designed for a different era. Today, it often creates bottlenecks that delay justice and increase costs. AI presents an opportunity not just to speed things up, but to rethink how legal and administrative decision-making is reached and delivered:

- Can we automate triage for low-complexity cases?

- Can AI help parties reach resolution before litigation begins?

- Can we design hybrid systems where AI handles process, and humans handle judgment?

These are not just technical questions — they are ethical and institutional ones. The goal is not to replace lawyers, judges or staff, but to augment their capabilities and make access to decision-making more accessible and faster.

3. Conclusion: A Call for Balance and Reform

The legal profession is at a crossroads. On one hand, we must resist the temptation to outsource critical thinking to machines. On the other, we must embrace innovation that can make legal services more accessible, efficient, and responsive.

The challenge ahead is not just about resisting blind trust in AI — it’s about reimagining how we deliver justice. That means integrating technology responsibly, educating legal professionals on its limitations, and reforming outdated systems that no longer serve the people they were designed to assist.

We owe our clients more than speed. We owe them accuracy, ethics, and discernment. And we owe our profession a commitment to evolve — wisely.