When Justice Meets Algorithms: Can Lawyers Trust AI?

The Growing Influence of AI in the Justice System

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly making its mark on various sectors, and the justice system is no exception. While some legal professionals are leveraging AI to enhance their work, others have encountered significant challenges due to the technology's limitations. This growing influence has sparked a heated debate about whether AI is a helpful assistant or an unreliable imposter in the legal field.

One notable incident occurred in Zimbabwe, where a senior lawyer was forced to issue a formal apology to the Supreme Court after an AI-generated legal research error led to the submission of incorrect case references. This event highlights the potential dangers of relying solely on AI without proper verification. Such mistakes can lead to professional embarrassment and even judicial errors, raising serious questions about the reliability of AI in legal practice.

Similar incidents have been reported globally. In the United States, attorney Thomas Neild faced consequences after submitting a legal brief with fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT. The court penalized him for not verifying the information, emphasizing that legal professionals cannot outsource their ethical responsibilities to AI. This case underscores the importance of human oversight and the need for legal practitioners to maintain their critical thinking skills.

In South Africa, there have also been instances where the misuse of AI has negatively impacted legal proceedings. A dispute involving a mining company and the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator showcased how flawed arguments stemming from AI use can harm legal outcomes. These cases reflect a broader concern within the legal community about the integration of AI into legal workflows.

As AI becomes more prevalent, many lawyers are calling for formal guidelines to ensure its responsible use in courtrooms. The persuasive nature of AI-generated arguments often comes at the cost of verifiability, challenging core legal principles such as transparency, fairness, and accountability. It is essential to recognize that while AI can streamline research and automate tasks, it should never replace rigorous professional judgment.

The urgency of this conversation is growing, especially with the increasing capabilities of AI. Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang recently highlighted how AI is now performing tasks previously done by junior associates, raising concerns about the future of legal education and training. This discussion emphasizes the need for all information generated through AI to be thoroughly verified, reinforcing the enduring importance of human oversight.

Even as AI becomes more capable, it cannot substitute the critical thinking, ethical responsibility, and contextual understanding that legal professionals bring to their work. The question arises: to what extent are these AI-related mishaps a result of poor legal training or a lack of critical thinking skills? Better training on the origins, limitations, and use cases of generative AI could prevent such lapses in judgment.

Moreover, the integration of AI into the legal profession is no longer a question of if, but how. From the United States to Zimbabwe and South Africa, the legal community is witnessing both the promise and peril of AI in real time. When used wisely, AI can enhance efficiency and streamline research. However, careless or lazy use can erode trust in the legal system, which is particularly concerning in regions where trust is already fragile.

Afrobarometer data indicates a decline in public trust in courts across 39 African countries since 2011. In such an environment, the unwise use of AI risks deepening a crisis of confidence in justice itself. The solution is not to reject AI, but to regulate and respect it. Clear ethical guidelines must be developed across jurisdictions to govern how AI is used in legal work.

Mandatory training and AI literacy should be introduced into legal education and professional development. Most importantly, legal practitioners must remember that AI is a tool—not a replacement for legal reasoning, human judgment, or intellectual effort. Lawyers must not surrender their critical thinking to algorithms. Laziness in the profession is not just unprofessional, it is dangerous.

AI can easily become a crutch that stifles creativity, weakens analytical skills, and dulls a lawyer’s most essential weapon: the mind. At best, AI should challenge lawyers to be sharper, faster, and more precise. At worst, it can lull them into complacency, undermining the very integrity of the profession.

As we stand at the crossroads of justice and technology, the future of law will depend not on how advanced AI becomes, but on how responsibly and thoughtfully we choose to use it. The law is not just about logic; it is about ethics, nuance, and human understanding. And no machine, no matter how powerful, can ever fully replace that.