Will AI replace junior lawyers or redefine their roles?

As artificial intelligence becomes capable of drafting contracts or summarising judgements in the blink of an eye, many young lawyers and students entering the legal field are wondering whether this marks the end of the traditional junior lawyer role. 

Across the globe, various AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity have demonstrated impressive capabilities, transforming how legal tasks are completed in a fraction of the time once thought impossible.

Research that once required hours can now be done in minutes. Yet this technological advancement raises an unsettled question: Can machines and technology, under the banner of AI, replace entry-level junior lawyers?

For generations, junior lawyers, interns and pupils have been the backbone of chambers and law firms, conducting legal research, drafting petitions from dictation, preparing case summaries, and observing court proceedings — all of which form the foundation of practical legal education. Working as a junior lawyer offers invaluable lessons in humility, ethics and judgement.

As Md Shahadat Hossain, advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, aptly put it, "You cannot learn law without human friction — the client's emotion, the judge's tone, the senior's correction." 

However, when a machine can prepare a case summary within seconds, the traditional learning and mentoring opportunities of junior lawyers are increasingly coming under threat. The concern is not only about employment, but about the chance to learn and gain experience.

Globally, AI has already entered the legal profession. 

Harvey AI, built on OpenAI technology, assists lawyers in drafting contracts and reviewing documents. CoCounsel helps American lawyers review evidence and prepare depositions, while Lexis+ AI supports legal research and precedent analysis. These systems deliver speed, accuracy and cost efficiency.

In Bangladesh, however, adoption of these tools remains limited. Many lawyers have begun using ChatGPT or similar platforms for initial drafting, benefitting from their 24-hour availability and instant access to information. 

Yet these tools are restricted by the data on which they are trained — much of it derived from Western jurisdictions. Blind reliance without cross-checking can lead to misapplied principles or breaches of professional ethics. Thus, adaptation has been slow; if findings still require verification, the process remains time-consuming.

Another question arises: Can a machine judge like a human? Despite their power, AI tools lack what the law values most — human judgement. Legal reasoning depends on empathy, moral intuition, and the ability to weigh consequences within a social context. 

Can AI understand equity? Algorithms can process logic, but human lawyers interpret life. AI may assist with efficiency, but it cannot replace discretion, creativity, or the ethical reasoning that defines true advocacy.

Ethical challenges also loom large. First, confidentiality is at risk: AI systems store data to train and improve their models, meaning that uploading client affidavits or contracts — even for minor edits — can lead to unintentional breaches of professional secrecy. 

The Bangladesh Bar Council's Code of Conduct stresses a lawyer's duty to preserve confidentiality, something an AI system cannot guarantee. Second, accountability becomes blurred. 

If an AI-generated document misleads a court, who bears responsibility — the lawyer or the developer? Third, bias is a serious concern: AI systems inherit prejudice from their training data. If models are trained on foreign judgments, they may overlook local case law and social realities.

Professional integrity, therefore, requires that lawyers verify all automated outcomes. Dr Khaled Hamid Chowdhury, Advocate of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has noted that AI in law raises major concerns such as bias from historical data, lack of transparency in decision-making, and unclear accountability when errors occur. He added that overreliance on AI might weaken professional judgement and compromise client data security, thereby threatening confidentiality.

The professional challenges for young lawyers are mounting. AI's rise is reshaping legal careers. Tasks that once defined a junior lawyer's early experience — researching, drafting and summarising — are now being automated. 

New entrants risk losing the apprenticeship-style learning essential to becoming competent advocates. Conversely, firms now seek associates who are technologically skilled, with an understanding of both law and algorithms.

Barrister Sayed Ul Haque, advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has stated that while AI may not entirely replace junior lawyers, it will take over many of their routine tasks. 

However, he also emphasised that learning to become a lawyer requires mentorship, empathy and real-world interaction — things AI cannot replicate. Young lawyers, he suggested, should treat AI as a tool for efficiency, not a substitute for developing judgement, ethics, and advocacy skills.

Future junior lawyers will therefore need expertise in prompt engineering, data literacy, and the ethical use of AI. Law schools should integrate courses on AI ethics and legal technology into their curricula. 

Retired District Judge Manzur Quadir observed that "tomorrow's competent lawyer must be both legally and digitally expert."

Barrister Mariha Zaman Khan, Supreme Court advocate, has also noted that while AI is improving efficiency and work quality, Bangladesh still lacks specific AI legislation. She stressed that current acts, such as the Cyber Security Act (2023), fail to address key issues like accountability and data protection. 

Although AI legislation was announced in 2024, it remains pending. With proper training and ethical use, she added, AI can strengthen the justice system. 

Similarly, Barrister Mushrat Hasan Athina remarked that AI serves as a "co-pilot of the human mind" — enhancing creativity and judgement rather than replacing them.

Ultimately, the truth lies somewhere between fear and fantasy. AI may not replace lawyers, but it will certainly replace some of their work. The future may see AI-assisted chambers supervised by human lawyers who refine and interpret machine-generated outputs. AI is likely to become the digital clerk, not the advocate.

Young lawyers who learn to use these tools ethically will gain a competitive edge. By allowing AI to handle repetitive tasks, they can focus more on advocacy, negotiation, and human judgment. In this light, technology should be seen not as a rival but as a partner in justice. 

Hossain Shahdeen Rayan is a Final-Year LLB student at the University of London, LCLS (South).

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.