Throughout history, the legal field has maintained its association with human thinkers who act as advocates. But with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal sector, a critical question looms over aspiring lawyers: Will AI replace lawyers in the future?

AI in the Legal Industry

The modern legal practice receives its transformation through LegalTech implementations. AI tools utilize predictive capabilities to reduce workload while offering improved efficiency levels through their automated operations.

Various international law firms currently employ AI-based software which includes:

• ROSS Intelligence serves as an artificial intelligence system which performs legal research functions.
• DoNotPay operates as an AI-driven chatbot platform which aids people to fight legal matters on their own.
• CaseMine serves as an AI-powered Indian legal research platform developed for the local market.
• Kira Systems provides contract review capabilities for corporate law applications.

AI presents a quick process for handling vast legal datasets which instigates worries about the future of human law professionals.

What AI Can and Cannot Do in Law

The skill set of artificial intelligence includes automated document production and case research along with contract creation and regulatory compliance monitoring which is used to demand extended human labor. The primary restriction of AI systems consists of their inability to process human intelligence which includes judgment, reasoning, and emotional intelligence.

What AI Can Do:

1. AI can speed up legal document analysis and summary work.
2. AI systems deliver proactive insights about future court cases through historical court data analysis.
3. It can improve access to legal assistance for common disputes.
4. Through automation services firms can lower their operational expenses.

What AI Cannot Do:

1. AI systems cannot perform legal discourse through courtroom argumentation or produce effective persuasion within legal contexts.
2. Replacing human negotiation and legal strategy development is not something AI can do.
3. AI can give the best judgement on the basis of practical views but understanding the emotions behind legal disputes isn’t something it is capable of.
4. It doesn’t understand the ethical and moral choices that are needed for resolving complex legal matters.

AI technology will help lawyers execute their tasks instead of replacing their roles entirely.

The consensus among experts indicates AI technology will not eliminate the need for legal professionals, though using AI-enhanced practice will cause professionals without AI skills to lose their position.

Future lawyers need to accept and benefit from legal technology systems which extend their practice capabilities. Many legal firms hire modern lawyers with technical expertise to co-work with AI technology instead of viewing it as competition.

What This Means for LLB Aspirants?

To prepare yourself for the AI-driven legal world, you need to do the following if you are currently studying law or planning to study it :

1. The pursuit of AI-powered research tools should be your next step for practical legal technology training.
2. AI deals with data processing functions within law practice but lawyers handle the interpretation responsibilities.
3. Law professionals should maintain essential soft skills because the abilities to negotiate and advocate as well as emotional intelligence cannot be replaced by AI.
4. Computer law knowledge remains crucial for the profession because Artificial Intelligence created additional requirements for technology lawyers.

AI Is a Tool, Not a Replacement of Lawyers

AI technology transforms legal practice yet lacks the capability to replace human lawyers because of their intellectual abilities together with logical analysis and moral values. Lawyers who understand how to utilize AI technology as well as adapt will secure the profession in the upcoming years.

Law aspirants should respect the opportunity to study both legal and technological subjects instead of worrying about AI because the courts will favor attorneys who understand AI systems better than the ones who depend on artificial systems.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday, in an interim order of stay, prevented the Union Education Ministry and the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) from releasing the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rank list for 2025.

A division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy disposed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition preferred by Dindigul's C Chellamuthu charging malpractices and transparency deficit in scoring calculations for the rank list.

Chellamuthu, in his petition, averred that the NIRF ranking is determined solely on the basis of the data furnished by the institutions without auditing or verification. He averred that several institutions furnish false data to enhance their ranking to attract students and MNCs.

He furnished comparative reports of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council's (NAAC's) AQAR (Annual Quality Assurance Report) reports and the NIRF reports, uploaded online by certain institutions.

He asserted that the numbers related to the number of PhD students, faculties, R&D funds, consultancy project funds received, etc., are more in the NIRF reports than in the AQAR reports.

'Institutions with poor academic quality and infrastructure receive top rankings'

Since the AQAR reports are cross-checked by NAAC's professional committees, the inconsistencies in NIRF data indicate that institutions have manipulated their submissions to get higher rankings, Chellamuthu asserted. This, he charged, enables institutions with inferior academic quality and infrastructure to get top rankings, while several renowned state universities are left out. He cautioned that such manipulation could damage the quality of higher education in the nation.

The petitioner implored the court to order the Union Ministry and NBA to release NIRF rankings—which evaluate educational institutions across the country—only after strict verification and complete disclosure of the scoring process.

After considering the data provided, the bench made an interim order. The government advocate asked for time to file a counter affidavit, and the case was listed for April 24.

The Kerala High Court has rationalized the application of cane in schools and held that a pre-inquiry is a must before registering any criminal case against a teacher in relation to their conduct in a school or college in order to preserve discipline, and good student behaviour.

Believing in the adage 'spare the rod and spoil the child', Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said: “Let the teachers carry a cane while they are in educational institutions if they intend to do so. It need not be used always, but the mere presence of a cane with teachers will create a psychological effect in the student community by discouraging them from doing any social evils.”

The court has directed the state police chief to issue a circular in this context and stated that it is needed in today's situation where there are instances of students carrying weapons within educational institutions and consuming drugs and alcohol. Recently a student had attacked a teacher on the issue of using cell phone in class.

The court noted that "for minor chastisements by teachers in schools, in good faith, while providing education or in relation to the discipline and conduct of a pupil, the teachers must be safeguarded against criminal prosecution".

The court opined that "no teacher should be made to suffer because he advised a student or gave minor punishments for indiscipline and bad behavior. Of course, a section of students and parents will come with grievances (against teachers) about punishment. If there are grievances, police authorities should make a inquiry preliminary with notice to the concerned teacher and the grievant party, if so required. No teacher should be arrested at such a stage," the court observed.

The court noted this while granting bail to Sibin S V of Neyyattinkara, a school teacher and accused in a case for allegedly assaulting a class-6 standard student.

The court added that teachers are the unseen heroes of our society. "They mold the minds, hearts, and souls of our future generation. No measures should be taken to lower the morale of the teachers' community because they are the backbone of our future generation", the court added.

Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) has withdrawn the suspension of at least 10 students who were suspended for allegedly taking part in protests on campus. The students have, however, been directed to execute a "bond of good conduct" within seven working days from the date of receiving the withdrawal letter. This comes on the heels of a Delhi High Court order suspending the university's suspension order.

Recently, JMI had suspended 17 students for staging protests against two PhD scholars' disciplinary action purportedly for coordinating "Jamia Resistance Day" on December 15, 2024. The event celebrates the start of the 2019 protests on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The students were also staging a protest against the university banning demonstrations on campus. After their police detention, which ended an indefinite sit-in demonstration within the campus, the university suspended them on charges of suspected vandalism and unauthorized agitations.

The JMI administration has yet to provide any official statement on the issue or lifting of suspension of the remaining seven students. While this is on, some of the students have come out opposing signing the undertaking. In an interview with PTI, AISA-supported students Saurabh and Sonakshi said, "We will not sign any bond of good conduct and will seek legal help if necessary."

While 10 students are now cleared to attend classes, students say that only a single one of the seven who had moved the Delhi High Court against the suspension has got a revocation letter.

Apart from that, two students have also been directed to pay fines of Rs 5,000 and Rs 3,000 under disciplinary action. A letter given by the Office of the JMI Chief Proctor to one of the students states, "On reconsidering the Discipline Committee's recommendation dated February 2, the Competent Authority, JMI, exercising the power under statute 31 of the JMI Act, has resolved to cancel the Suspension Order dated February 12, with a fine of Rs 5,000 to be deposited within a month from the date of receipt of this letter."

The letter also directs the student to return to academic pursuits maintaining university regulations by filing the "Bond of Good Conduct" in seven working days. The two disciplinary committees on February 25 and March 4 had advised cancellation of suspensions, which were stayed after the Delhi High Court intervened on March 4.

There was also a controversy when a list of suspended students-- including their phone numbers and addresses -- was said to have been posted at the university entrance. Students accused the administration of orchestrating the act, but the university refuted this. The list was subsequently taken down, though.

Seven of the suspended students approached the Delhi High Court challenging the university's action. The court, during the hearing of their plea, suspended the suspension order on March 4 and asked the university to constitute a committee to settle the matter.