LEAP | Is legal AI becoming ‘mandatory’ in criminal law?
There is understandable caution around the idea that AI could become ‘mandatory’ in legal practice. Strictly speaking, there is no rule requiring lawyers to use AI on cases, and I do not believe we are at the point where anyone can say it is compulsory. But I do think we are moving towards a position where lawyers should feel a growing professional obligation to consider it seriously.
At the heart of this is client care. Lawyers owe clear duties to their clients, and in criminal law, those duties sit alongside a great deal of human, emotional pressure. Being investigated or prosecuted is deeply stressful. Even where the financial cost is unconcerning to a client, the emotional toll is often significant. Delays, slow communication and administrative backlogs all add to that strain. When a client is waiting for a document, chasing for an update or wondering whether their case is progressing, that uncertainty matters.
If there are tools available that can help legal professionals work faster, communicate more effectively and reduce avoidable delays, it is reasonable to ask whether ignoring them is really in the client’s best interests.
This is particularly relevant in high-pressure areas such as criminal practice, where workloads are heavy, timelines are tight, and unpredictability is part of the job. Used properly, AI has the potential to improve efficiency, speed up routine tasks and free lawyers up to focus on applying professional judgement, strategy and client support. Rather than replacing legal expertise, this is about giving lawyers more time to apply it where it matters most.
There is also a wider question of fairness, and an ‘equality of arms’. With Part 2 of Leveson’s Review of the Criminal Courts suggesting that the courts, police and CPS should make responsible use of AI in case preparation, defence lawyers and private prosecutors cannot afford to stand still. If one side of the system is becoming more efficient through technology, others will need to consider how they respond.
Of course, concerns remain. Data protection, compliance and accuracy all matter, and they should. Nobody in law should adopt AI carelessly. But the answer is not to dismiss the technology outright. It is to use the right tools, with the right safeguards, and with a clear understanding of where AI helps and where human oversight remains essential – and to take the time to learn and engage with it.
Legal AI may not yet be mandatory, but for many firms, it is fast becoming too important to ignore.
