Over the past few years, generative AI has been changing the landscape of corporate legal practice. From drafting contracts to due diligence, AI-powered tools have long been embedded in the daily operations of law firms and in-house legal teams. However, as generative AI gets more impressive and persuasive, it is important that the need for robust human oversight does not diminish.
Supervision, accountability and the limits of AI in legal practice
The legal profession is governed by rigorous standards and regulatory requirements. While generative AI can enhance efficiency and accuracy, it cannot independently guarantee compliance with these standards. In some respects, the role of AI in legal work is comparable to that of a junior team member: it can produce drafts, summarise documents and identify issues, but its work must be reviewed and validated by experienced practitioners. This review process is critical not only for maintaining quality but also for upholding the integrity of legal advice provided to clients.
Unchecked reliance on AI-generated outputs carries significant risks. These include factual inaccuracies, omissions and the potential for embedded bias, each of which can have serious legal and reputational consequences. The courts are continuing to catch legal practitioners relying on ChatGPT to draft submissions with fictional cases. Human review acts as a safeguard, enabling legal teams to identify and correct errors, mitigate risks and ensure that the final work product aligns with both client expectations and legal obligations.
Embedding structured review into AI-assisted legal workflows
Ensuring there is a human-in-the-loop is a natural extension of the traditional supervisory structures that have long underpinned the legal profession, such as senior lawyers reviewing the work of their junior colleagues. These processes have had years to bed in as legal workflows evolve. For AI-assisted workflows, we don't have the luxury of time to let this gestate. To maximise the benefits of generative AI while minimising risks, law firms and in-house teams must develop structured review mechanisms. It is critical that these are appropriate for the task at hand, otherwise they can diminish the benefits that AI can bring. In practice this might mean clear checkpoints within the workflow where human intervention is required, such as the initial review of AI-generated drafts or validation of legal research.
The integration of AI into legal workflows presents opportunities for both junior and senior lawyers. For junior lawyers, supervised engagement with AI tools can accelerate learning and expose them to a broader range of legal issues. For senior lawyers, the oversight of AI-generated work enhances supervisory skills and reinforces the importance of mentoring. As best practices evolve, law firms have the opportunity to develop innovative training programmes that combine technological proficiency with traditional legal expertise.
Human oversight remains a cornerstone of effective legal practice, even as generative AI becomes more prevalent within corporate law firms. The principles of supervision, quality assurance and professional development that have long defined the legal profession are as relevant in the digital age as ever. By designing robust oversight frameworks, law firms can harness the benefits of AI while safeguarding the interests of their clients and upholding the highest standards of the profession.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
