International Lawyers Facing AI and Legal Malpractice: Navigating Innovation, Obligation, and Bar Regulations in Disputes

Throughout our professional history, US-qualified lawyers have witnessed the American legal system’s transformation, continually evolving through the adoption of the Internet and the digitalization of case documents decades ago.

The forthcoming era of litigation poses a crucial question: Should, or let’s now fully integrate it, how specifically should attorneys leverage assistive technology to suit their case needs and improve practice while avoiding legal malpractice? To navigate this inquiry, we gathered perspectives from a panel of esteemed litigation specialists, arbitrators, and technology experts across the US jurisdictions and beyond, in Saudi Arabia and even in Singapore, at the edge of the tech, on the potential incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the litigation process.

The Role of AI in Litigation: Expert Perspectives

Integrating AI into litigation marks a significant milestone in the legal profession’s history. AI has begun streamlining various aspects of legal practice, from research and case analysis to the automation of routine tasks. Kelly Forbes, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the AI Asia Pacific Institute in Singapore, dual-qualified in both the US and Singaporean legal systems, has observed AI’s growing influence in litigation. Forbes notes that Natural Language Processing (NLP) enhances e-discovery, while AI-driven case management systems optimize workflows. However, she emphasizes the importance of balancing AI’s benefits with ethical considerations, transparency, and accountability—a sentiment echoed by many in the legal community.

Similarly, Anna Sarkisyan, attorney and Founding CEO of Evrica Technologies, Inc., which focuses on Web 3.0, highlights AI’s contributions to litigation, particularly in data analysis, document review, and legal research. Sarkisyan points out that AI can significantly accelerate these processes and provide predictive insights into case outcomes. For instance, AI can generate preliminary drafts of cross-examination questions based on detailed case data. However, she cautions that AI-generated content must be verified by experts and aligned with court-admissible evidence.

Grace Simms, Adjunct Professor at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, addresses concerns over legal professionals’ potential misuse of AI. Simms notes that many attorneys are already benefiting from AI-assisted features in widely used legal platforms such as Lexis+ AI and Blue J Legal—often without fully realizing it. These platforms have quietly integrated AI support into research, drafting, and predictive analytics, illustrating AI’s seamless integration into legal practice.

Dan Perera, a US and UK-qualified attorney and multipanel arbitrator practicing in Singapore, provides additional insights into AI’s role in litigation. Perera sees the automation of quasi-administrative tasks such as filling out standard template forms, drafting notices, simple correspondence, and scheduling hearing dates as being on the horizon. In due course, even the pre-litigation assessment of merits may be handled through automation. He also highlights that AI models, powered by vast data sets, will soon play a crucial role in insurers’ risk assessment and quantum modeling. However, the accuracy of these models will heavily depend on the data and assumptions they are built upon—a contentious point that will likely be a source of dispute.

Expanding the discussion to an even more international perspective, we received precious insights from Nawaf Al Ghamdi, a Legal Counsel at Law Spirit Company in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, whose education spans both Saudi Arabia and the United States. Al Ghamdi provides a distinctive cross-cultural perspective on litigation, cautioning against AI bias and emphasizing the need for human oversight. He acknowledges AI’s general usefulness but warns that it is far from infallible and can be biased. For instance, AI might favor emails with specific keywords like “complaint” or “conflict,” potentially overlooking necessary evidence in other emails. Al Ghamdi stresses the importance of ensuring fairness, adherence to legal standards, and unbiased decision-making before integrating AI into legal practices. This involves thorough testing to identify and rectify any biases in AI algorithms while also considering transparency, accountability, and privacy concerns.

Ethical Responsibilities, Legal Malpractice, and Bar Positions

The consensus among our panel underscores the critical need for conscientious oversight when deploying AI in litigation contexts. Seeing AI’s expanded role, Kelly Forbes insists that despite AI’s growing indispensability in decision-making, final decisions must remain under human jurisdiction.

Shawn Shaffie, litigator at Parker Shaffie, LLP, renowned for its leading practice in legal malpractice across California and the US, emphasizes the paramount importance of attorney oversight as a safeguard. Shawn advises that AI-generated content must undergo a rigorous review by lawyers, as attorney supervision is essential to managing the novelty and risks associated with AI technology.

Similarly, Dan Perera stresses the necessity for human professionals with ethical and regulatory responsibilities to review, affirm, and cross-reference the accuracy of AI-generated work, thereby fulfilling disclosure obligations. He further advises that vigilance regarding the types of AI systems is required to ensure they do not violate confidentiality, professional conduct, or bar standards nor risk waiving privilege.

Kelly Forbes highlights the establishment of ethical safeguards, pointing to evolving guidance and frameworks that outline principles for AI’s responsible use and development. Notably, the Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024) parallels an attorney’s oversight of generative AI with the duty to oversee the work of a nonlawyer assistant. This ethics opinion concludes that “a lawyer may ethically utilize generative AI technologies, but only to the extent that a lawyer can reasonably guarantee compliance with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.” Additionally, the State of California Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct recommends that the California State Bar should “develop attorney education programs that assist lawyers in understanding and gaining competence regarding the potential risks, benefits, and ethical implications of using generative AI” alongside taking other precautions to expand attorney familiarity with AI.

However, several judges across the United States have issued strict standing orders on this topic. Among them is Judge Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, who issued a standing order on May 30, 2023, requiring all attorneys and pro se litigants to “file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (. . .) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being.” Similarly, Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden of the United States Court of International Trade issued a standing order on May 31, 2023, warning that the use of generative AI programs “may create novel risks to the security of confidential information” because such programs “may result in the corporate owner of the program retaining access to the confidential information.” The Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois likewise cautions that “one way to jeopardize the mission of federal courts is to use an AI tool to generate legal research that includes ‘bogus judicial decisions’ cited for substantive propositions of law.” See Standing Order for Civil Cases before Magistrate Judge Fuentes, May 31, 2023.

Looking Ahead: The Future of AI in Litigation

Looking toward the future, Anna Sarkisyan believes that AI has remarkable potential to assist in resolving minor disputes, particularly by providing initial legal guidance and aiding in negotiations. Sarkisyan notes that this potential should be limited and “should not replace the essential human element in dispute resolution.” She suggests that programming specific data sets to correlate with specific outcomes will form the basis of legal AI in the future. Sarkisyan also envisions a future where AI could benefit pro se litigants by “providing accessible legal information, aiding in document preparation, and guiding them through legal processes” and assisting with jury selection by “analyzing vast datasets to identify potential biases and patterns, helping to form a more impartial jury.”

Grace Simms shares a similar optimism, predicting that “we’re going to see more and more apps/chatbots that assist in small claims” and expressing hope that AI will make legal resources more accessible. Simms offers valuable advice to all litigators: “Always think of AI as an assistant! Keep confidentiality in mind!”