Artificial intelligence is already embedded in legal practice.
In part 1 of this series, we explored what AI is and how it is being used. The next question is more important.
What are the risks, and how should lawyers use AI responsibly?
For a profession built on trust, confidentiality, and professional judgement, these questions are not theoretical. They go directly to the heart of how legal services are delivered.
Listen to the original episode
You can listen to the full podcast episode here:
AI for lawyers part 2: risks and ethics
Why ethics matters in AI
Artificial intelligence is not simply a technical tool. It is a system built on data, assumptions, and human decisions.
Across governments and institutions, there has been a significant push to define ethical principles for AI. These typically focus on:
- Transparency
- Fairness
- Accountability
- Reducing harm
While these principles are widely accepted, a key challenge remains.
They are often high level. Turning them into day-to-day legal practice is harder.
The gap between principle and practice
One of the central issues in AI ethics is the speed of development.
AI systems are evolving rapidly, often faster than legal frameworks, governance models, and internal policies can keep up.
This creates a clear gap:
- Ethical principles exist
- Practical safeguards lag behind
- Users adopt tools before fully understanding the risks
For lawyers, this creates exposure.
The risk is not only misuse of AI. It is overconfidence in systems that are not fully understood.
Understanding the key risks
There is no single way to categorise AI risks, but several themes emerge consistently.
Bias and discrimination
AI systems are trained on data, and that data reflects human behaviour.
If the underlying data contains bias, the system may reproduce or amplify it.
This is particularly important in areas involving ranking, evaluation, or outcome prediction. A system may reflect hidden assumptions in its training data.
For legal professionals, this raises immediate concerns about fairness and equality.
Inaccuracy and hallucination
AI systems can generate convincing but incorrect outputs.
This is often called hallucination, where a model produces information that appears plausible but is factually wrong.
In legal practice, this risk is significant.
Incorrect authorities, inaccurate summaries, or fabricated references can undermine advice and may lead to serious professional consequences.
Lack of transparency
Many AI systems do not fully disclose how they are trained or how they produce outputs.
This creates uncertainty about:
- What data was used
- How outputs are generated
- What limitations exist
Without transparency, it becomes harder to assess reliability or identify potential bias.
Privacy and data use
AI development often involves large-scale data processing.
In some cases, public data is scraped. In others, user inputs may be retained to improve future model behaviour.
This raises several issues:
- Potential privacy breaches
- Intellectual property concerns
- Unauthorised use of sensitive information
For lawyers, the risk is acute. Client confidentiality and legal privilege must be protected at all times.
The importance of control over data
One of the most important distinctions in legal AI use is where and how data is processed.
If documents are uploaded into third-party systems without clear controls, there is a risk that:
- Data may be retained
- Data may be reused
- Data may leave a secure environment
By contrast, systems operating within controlled environments allow AI to analyse documents without exposing them externally.
This distinction is critical for maintaining confidentiality and professional standards.
The human risk of over-reliance
Not all AI risk is technical.
One of the most significant risks is behavioural.
AI tools can produce structured, confident text that appears authoritative. That can encourage over-reliance.
Users may:
- Accept outputs without checking
- Assume accuracy where none is guaranteed
- Treat AI as an adviser rather than a tool
This is especially dangerous in legal work, where precision and context are essential.
The principle is simple.
AI can assist, but it cannot replace judgement.
The role of the human in the loop
A central concept in responsible AI use is the human in the loop.
This means AI outputs must always be reviewed and validated before use.
In legal practice, this applies to:
- Draft documents
- Advice notes
- Emails
- Research outputs
Even when output appears correct, it must be checked.
Responsibility remains with the lawyer, not the system.
Practical risks in legal workflows
When AI is used in live legal work, risks can emerge in practical and subtle ways.
For example:
- AI may blend information from multiple matters
- Sensitive details may appear in draft output
- Users may copy and send text without sufficient review
These are not theoretical concerns. They arise from ordinary usage.
Mitigation is straightforward, but it requires discipline.
Users must read, understand, and verify all output before it leaves their control.
The growing regulatory response
Regulation is beginning to respond to these challenges.
One of the most significant developments is the EU AI Act, which introduces a risk-based framework for AI systems.
It categorises certain uses of AI as high risk, especially where they involve:
- Legal interpretation
- Judicial processes
- Decision-making affecting individuals
The framework also emphasises:
- Transparency
- Risk management
- Accountability
Importantly, it introduces the concept of AI literacy.
Organisations using AI will need to ensure staff understand the systems they use and the associated risks.
Training and internal policy
For legal organisations, the immediate priority is practical control in the present.
This means:
- Clear policies on when and how AI can be used
- Training so staff understand risks and limits
- Defined workflows that include review and validation
- Strong awareness of confidentiality and data handling
Without these controls, AI use still happens, but without oversight.
That is where the greatest risk sits.
The reality is that AI is already being used
A key point often overlooked is that AI adoption is not a future concern.
It is already happening.
Individuals are using AI tools:
- On personal devices
- Outside official systems
- Without formal guidance
This creates uncontrolled exposure.
If organisations do not provide secure, structured ways to use AI, people will find their own routes.
The result is greater risk, not less.
A practical conclusion
Artificial intelligence presents both opportunity and risk for the legal profession.
The benefits are clear:
- Increased efficiency
- Faster analysis
- Better use of time
The risks are equally clear:
- Inaccuracy
- Bias
- Loss of control over data
- Over-reliance
The response must be balanced.
AI should be used, but it must be used properly.
That means:
- Keeping control of data
- Maintaining human oversight
- Training users to understand tools and limits
- Embedding safeguards into daily workflows
For lawyers, this is not optional.
It is part of professional responsibility.
Continue listening
For the full discussion, listen to the original podcast episode:
