Judges urge lawyers to embrace AI or risk falling behind
The judges have spoken.
At an ABA Techshow panel Friday afternoon in Chicago, three judges handed down their verdict on artificial intelligence: It’s a must-do to survive in law.
Judge Scott Schlegel, a judge for the 1st District of the Louisiana 5th Circuit Court of Appeal and a 2021 ABA Journal Legal Rebel, explained that attorneys who aren’t utilizing a paid AI service are similar to soldiers going into battle with insufficient tools.
“In five years, you will be the one out of the practice because you’ve been left behind because you’re not using those tools,” Schlegel said. “If you’re not comfortable with it yet, write a poem, write a love song, figure out where you can go in Chicago over the next few days.”
The majority of the conference room, filled with eager attorneys and other legal professionals, seemed to agree. But a few weary attorneys raised their hands, admitting that they still aren’t totally aboard the AI boat. They didn’t understand it. They didn’t want to be the first in their firm to mess up via AI. They weren’t ready.
Judge Ashleigh Parker from the 10th Judicial District of North Carolina advised them to start small. She said that she typically will draft an email that gets straight to the point. Then, she said, she inputs it into AI and requests a “nicer” version. Or sometimes, she’ll ask AI how her email sounds from an objective standpoint.
Judges Scott Schlegel (left to right), Ashleigh Parker and Timothy Driscoll presented the panel. (Photo by Danielle Braff/ABA Journal)Timothy Driscoll, a justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, added that once you understand that AI needs to be checked and verified for hallucinations, you can really utilize the technology for a greater good, in addition to using it to help with all aspects of your field.
Parker said after going through a divorce where she personally didn’t understand the documents presented to her, she created a legal support center in her county. She uses AI to create videos and adjust documents so clients understand them, even if they can’t read or are having trouble comprehending legalese.
“It is important for us to use every mechanism we can,” she said. “We got into this profession hopefully because we want to help people, and this is the best way we could do this in a safe and appropriate way.”
In one instance, Parker recalled how she once asked a man in her courtroom to fill out an affidavit only for him to become aggressive. She couldn’t understand the issue until she realized he couldn’t read so he was unable to fill out the forms.
“What if I could have used ChatGPT to help me meet him at his level? How can I explain this in a way he would be able to understand it?” she mused.
It’s a different situation for judges who are tempted to use artificial intelligence to help them determine cases, however. Although the panelists admitted knowing judges who have used AI for this purpose, they were in agreement that a human judge rather than an artificial one needs to make their own judgements.
“Part of our social contract is not to give it over to the bot overlords,” Schlegel said. “I personally could use it properly, but I would never use it to give me the answer for a starting point.”
Follow along with the ABA Journal’s coverage of the ABA Techshow 2025 here.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
