A recent study conducted by legal-services firm Dentons evaluated four AI-based tools against human legal researchers by posing 200 typical U.S.-law research questions, measuring accuracy, completeness and contextual insight. The results revealed that while machines were highly efficient at recall and data retrieval, they still lagged behind humans in critical reasoning, nuance and risk assessment – a summary outcome that underscores the evolving, not replacing, role of AI in legal practice.
For general-counsel, law-firm partners and compliance leads, the lessons are substantial. Firstly, the performance gap means firms should not expect full substitution of human expertise just yet – while AI handles volume and speed, the human practitioner remains indispensable in interpreting and advising. Secondly, the strategic value of the AI tools lies in augmentation – leveraging machine speed to free up legal talent for higher-value tasks such as strategy, negotiations and client interaction. Thirdly, governance, oversight and validation must be baked into workflows: AI-generated outputs require human review, especially where risk, liability or regulatory consequences are significant.
The broader takeaway is that the legal-tech transition has entered a phase where collaboration between human and machine is the competitive frontier. Law firms and in-house legal teams should focus on three priorities: one, build workflows that integrate AI output with human judgement; two, invest in training lawyers to work with and interpret AI systems; and three, implement audit trails and controls to ensure the integrity and transparency of AI use. Without these steps, firms risk falling behind in efficiency or, worse, exposure to error and reputational harm.
In essence the era of “AI replaces lawyer” has not arrived – instead, the more valuable question is how humans and machines can jointly create better legal research and advice. That partnership will define the next chapter of legal services.
