PanoramAI Future of Law series
The latest roundtable discussion, hosted by Panoram, brought together senior legal executives to address a pressing question: Is generative AI (GenAI) the end of human document review? The event again provided a platform to analyse GenAI’s potential to reshape legal processes, impact junior roles, and disrupt traditional law firm structures. Here are the key takeaways from this insightful debate:
Automation vs. Human Expertise: The Value of Human Judgment in Legal Review
While there was broad consensus on GenAI’s ability to automate and improve low-level or time limited tasks, n document review, participants also questioned whether it could apply to or replace human expertise in more nuanced legal analysis. The contrast between litigation and time critical cases being the example. The issue of cyber incident response was cited as a strong use case. This being particularly relevant as data analysis costs quickly escalate and the ability to identify sensitive data is labour intensive, time consuming and produces only average outcomes. The ability to quickly and accurately mitigate regulatory and reputational risk and minimise unbudgeted costs makes the use of the technology compelling.
Document review teams appeared open to incorporating GenAI tools, acknowledging that these technologies could alleviate repetitive tasks that burden junior lawyers. There was also an acceptance of the speed and accuracy at which these tasks can be undertaken will disrupt a where human resource has traditional been deployed. This will provide significant cost and time savings and allow for faster decisioning.
However, it was argued that legal professionals bring a unique blend of insight and contextual understanding that GenAI alone cannot replicate. Despite GenAI’s accuracy and speed, human judgment remains crucial in tasks where ethical or interpretative decisions are involved, particularly in court settings where accountability must be clearly assigned. In summary, first pass document review can be challenged but humans will still be necessary to interpret the results.
A key example raised was the consistency of AI-generated responses. Just as human reviewers can vary in judgment from day to day, GenAI systems also show response variability based on prompts.
While AI tools are held to a high standard of accuracy, inconsistencies in GenAI outputs echo existing inconsistencies in results from eDiscovery platforms. Some argued that just as we accept variability in human responses, we may need to accept similar limitations in GenAI systems. However, the economic benefits and scalability of technology make it compelling.
Practical Applications and Limitations: GenAI’s Role in Legal Processes
The conversation also explored how the efficiency that GenAI is contrary to how, in reality a lot of legal cases are being run, particularly in litigation. Certain legal strategies—such as those designed to prolong litigation through resource-intensive processes do not align with GenAI’s efficiency-focused capabilities. This remains lucrative and , participants noted that GenAI could still contribute to these strategies by supporting this approach and creating obstructive tactics and arguments more efficiently, enabling cost-effective prolongation of claims.
This highlighted a paradox: while GenAI can streamline processes, it may also empower parties to entrench existing practices, potentially complicating legal workflows rather than simplifying them. Nonetheless, GenAI’s role in document review was acknowledged as a useful tool in high-volume, standardised tasks, freeing up billable hours. But questions remain on whether firms will use this additional time for productive, client-focused activities or identifying more internal efficiencies.
Impact on Junior Roles and Training: The Evolving Skills of Tomorrow’s Legal Professionals
A major theme of the discussion was how, by removing task that have historically be a fundamental part of training GenAI could significantly impact career development for junior lawyers. With GenAI handling foundational document review tasks, entry-level lawyers might face fewer opportunities to gain hands-on experience, raising concerns about how they will build the legal knowledge and practical skills necessary for advancement. Some participants suggested that GenAI could be programmed to self-prompt, breaking down broad legal objectives into specific tasks, potentially replacing certain junior-level functions entirely.
This change could create a vacuum in training pathways, making it more challenging for young legal professionals to gain the experience required for more complex work. Senior lawyers may need to develop new training frameworks to help bridge the skills gap that GenAI could create. While this issue doesn’t impact today, the gap will inevitably widen as more of the tasks, considered to be essential training as replaced by the technology.
However, others argued that similar fears were voiced during previous technological shifts, like the introduction of Computer-Assisted Review (CAR) and Technology-Assisted Review (TAR), which ultimately led to more diversified roles rather than job displacement.
Reshaping the Legal Market: Implications for Firm Structures and Market Competition
GenAI’s integration could reshape the legal market hierarchy, potentially squeezing mid-tier firms while widening the gap between large and small practices. Larger firms with the resources to invest in AI tools might expand their reach into smaller projects, which could lead to increased competition for mid-sized firms. Conversely, GenAI could also empower or give rise to smaller, specialist firms by enhancing their efficiency and removing the need for extensive resource, allowing them to challenge on cost and level the playing field with larger firms.
Participants debated whether high-street firms—often more consumer-focused—might suffer the most from GenAI, as clients increasingly turn to self-service options on routine legal tasks such as conveyancing, employment or matrimonial matters.
Looking Forward: Embracing GenAI’s Potential with Caution
The topic continues to divide opinion and there was no clear consensus on whether GenAI will completely replace many elements of human document review. However, the discussion emphasised a growing acceptance of GenAI’s role in legal processes, albeit with careful oversight. Senior staff members who were slow to adopt earlier technologies are likely to follow a similarly cautious approach with GenAI.
Embracing GenAI effectively will require a careful balancing of the technology’s efficiencies with the unique, irreplaceable insights human professionals provide, particularly in ethically complex areas of law. However, with the technology still in its relative infancy, those who chose to ignore the potential of GenAI could find themselves left behind in a rapidly evolving market.
With that considered and as GenAI continues to develop, legal professionals will need to adopt new skills, including managing and interpreting AI-generated results, to remain competitive. The key question remains: will GenAI transform document review into a more efficient process without sacrificing the nuanced expertise that only human judgment can deliver?