LettersAn AI twister is brewing on the legal horizon
Readers discuss the use of artificial intelligence for legal matters, and ethnic minority groups’ access to government services
The second quarter of 2026 has commenced with an overpowering scent of steampunk industriousness. ChatGPT, Gen AI (generative artificial intelligence) and LLM (large language model) have become the latest buzzwords of this epoch.
Junior lawyers like myself cannot suppress a twinge of apprehension, mixed with cautious zeal, when confronted with assertions that we are being replaced by AI programmes. Undeniably, AI makes research and drafting of documents easier. Tools like Harvey and Claude encroach on the turf of major players in legal research, such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. This has prompted some platforms to come up with their own innovations, such as LexisNexis’ AI assistant, Protege.
Many are blissfully unaware of the potentially sordid interactions between the use of generative AI and legal ethics. In the United States, state jurisdictions prohibit the unauthorised practice of law. This is enshrined in Rule 5.5 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Section 31 of Hong Kong’s Legal Practitioners Ordinance outlines the requirements an individual must satisfy to practise law. Although any entity can explain the law, only a licensed lawyer may advise on how the law applies to particular facts.
Due to mounting difficulties in gaining access to justice, such as prohibitive costs and perceived elitism, many are partial to soliciting help from AI. This carries immense risks. OpenAI is already being sued for practising law without authorisation in the US.