Senior barrister predicts AI will upend legal careers as firm leader urges restraint and review
The legal profession is facing sharply divided views over the impact of artificial intelligence, with one senior barrister warning that AI will “completely destroy” the law as it is currently practised, while a global law firm leader cautions against over-reliance on flawed technology.
The contrasting positions emerged this week as debate intensified over whether generative AI represents an existential threat to lawyers or a powerful but limited tool requiring careful control.
In a commentary published in The Spectator, an anonymous barrister in his mid-fifties said recent experience using a premium AI tool developed by Grok had fundamentally altered his view of the profession’s future. He described the system as operating “at the level of a truly great KC” and concluded that artificial intelligence would rapidly dismantle established legal careers and systems, leaving thousands without work.
Embed from Getty Images
According to the article, the barrister warned a relative against pursuing a legal career, suggesting the role may not exist within a decade. He argued that the pace of technological change meant disruption would arrive faster than most practitioners expect.
That stark assessment was countered by comments from Julian Taylor, a senior partner at global law firm Simmons & Simmons, who emphasised the limitations and risks associated with AI-generated output. While acknowledging the firm’s commitment to adopting artificial intelligence, Taylor warned of the dangers of what he described as ‘AI slop’.
He said AI tools cannot replace a lawyer’s professional obligations and stressed the need for rigorous human oversight. Taylor highlighted the risk of hallucinations and inaccurate analysis, arguing that legal advice must remain defensible, contextual and subject to experienced review.
Taylor also referenced research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggesting that excessive reliance on generative AI may lead to “cognitive debt”, weakening critical thinking and the ability to construct complex arguments. He said the firm’s objective was not to maximise AI usage, but to use technology in a way that enhances judgement rather than undermining it.
Insights from junior lawyers appear to support the more cautious view. Feedback gathered through Legal Cheek’s annual survey of more than two thousand trainees and junior lawyers suggests many firms are struggling to integrate expensive AI systems into everyday practice. Respondents reported that where tools are operational, results are often underwhelming and prone to errors.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding AI disruption, there is little evidence so far that artificial intelligence is reshaping recruitment patterns in corporate law. Graduate hiring has dipped slightly from recent peaks but remains well above pre-pandemic levels, a change largely attributed to the growth of solicitor apprenticeships rather than automation.
For now, AI’s role in law appears unsettled. While predictions of dramatic upheaval continue, many within the profession see technology as a developing aid rather than an immediate replacement for human expertise.