Will AI replace lawyers? 6 experts weigh in
Image by LEANDRO AGUILAR from Pixabay
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming industries worldwide, and the legal profession is no exception. From drafting contracts to analyzing case law, AI tools promise faster, cheaper, and more efficient legal services. But will AI ever replace lawyers altogether?
To explore this pressing question, we interviewed six legal professionals from different practice areas. Their answers shed light on both the potential and the limitations of AI in law.
Expert 1
Austin Mandall, an immigration lawyer with Mandall Immigration Law in Ottawa, believes immigration law highlights both the promise and the limits of AI.
“Immigration cases are deeply personal,” Mandall explains. “AI can assist with form-filling, eligibility assessments, and even predicting approval chances, but it cannot comfort a client who is terrified about being separated from their family. It can’t strategize when an application is refused, or adapt to sudden changes in immigration policy.”
He concludes that AI will make immigration lawyers more efficient by reducing repetitive tasks, but it won’t remove the need for human advocates who understand both the law and the emotional weight behind each case.
Expert 2
Gurasish Pal Singh, a criminal lawyer with GPS Criminal Lawyers in Brampton, sees AI as a useful tool but not a substitute in criminal defense.
“In criminal law, outcomes often hinge on credibility, persuasion, and empathy,” Singh says. “No matter how advanced AI becomes, it won’t be able to stand in court, cross-examine a witness, or appeal to a jury’s sense of justice.”
He acknowledges AI’s value in reviewing surveillance footage or analyzing police reports, but emphasizes that defense lawyers must build narratives that resonate with judges and juries. “AI will change how we work, but not why we work.”
Expert 3
Akash Dhillon, a criminal and DUI lawyer with A Dhillon Law Professional Corporation in Brampton, believes AI’s main role is efficiency, not advocacy.
“AI can review case precedents faster than any associate, which saves clients money and frees lawyers to focus on higher-level strategy,” Dhillon says. “But when it comes to defending a DUI client in court, explaining the nuances of breathalyzer testing, or challenging police procedure, AI can’t replicate the human skill set.”
Dhillon also raises concerns about accountability. “Relying too heavily on AI without oversight could lead to errors or biases. Ultimately, lawyers are accountable to their clients and the justice system—AI is not.”
Expert 4
Ahmad Karzai, a DUI lawyer with Karzai Law in Toronto, also stresses the irreplaceable role of courtroom advocacy.
“In DUI defense, details matter—how the officer conducted the stop, whether rights were explained, how tests were administered,” Karzai explains. “AI can flag inconsistencies, but it can’t argue persuasively in front of a judge. It can’t read the room or adapt mid-trial to an unexpected twist.”
He sees AI as a force for efficiency but insists clients hire lawyers for judgment and advocacy. “AI doesn’t have judgment—it has data.”
Expert 5
Birpal Benipal, a commercial and corporate lawyer with Benipal Law in Brampton, sees AI making strides in the business world but falling short of replacing human negotiators.
“AI can quickly scan thousands of pages during a merger, flagging risks and inconsistencies,” Benipal says. “That’s incredibly valuable. But when two companies are negotiating a deal worth millions, it comes down to people—trust, compromise, and creativity.”
He adds that businesses want more than legal answers. “They want to know how the law affects their strategy, their reputation, and their future. That requires human insight.”
Expert 6
Amar Bhinder, a family lawyer with Polaris Legal Group in Brampton, believes AI has very limited application in family law.
“AI might generate a parenting plan template or calculate child support quickly, but family law is not just about numbers,” Bhinder says. “It’s about people in crisis—divorces, custody disputes, emotional breakdowns. A machine can’t mediate between parents who are angry, scared, or heartbroken.”
He also highlights the risk of families relying too much on AI without professional oversight. “Technology can support us, but it can’t replace the compassion and advocacy that family law requires.”
While their practice areas differ, all six lawyers share a similar conclusion: AI will transform the way lawyers work, but it won’t replace them.
- Efficiency gains: AI will speed up research, document review, and administrative tasks.
- Cost savings: Clients may benefit from lower legal fees as lawyers spend less time on routine work.
- Human judgment: Strategy, advocacy, negotiation, and empathy remain irreplaceable.
- Ethical concerns: Bias, accountability, and over-reliance on AI are real risks.
As Mandall summed it up: “AI can be an assistant, but not an advocate. Clients need both efficiency and humanity, and only lawyers can deliver that balance.”
The question “Will AI replace lawyers?” may spark debate, but the consensus among these six experts is clear: no. AI will undoubtedly reshape the legal profession, but lawyers bring something machines cannot—human judgment, ethical responsibility, and the ability to connect with clients on a personal level.
As Singh put it, “AI will change how we practice law, but it won’t change why we practice law.”
For clients, this means the future of legal services will likely blend the best of both worlds: the speed and precision of technology with the skill, empathy, and judgment of experienced lawyers.