From Pen and Ink to AI: Technology and Legal Practice
Richard Ortoli
Founding Partner
Ortoli Rosenstadt LLP
New York, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong
The practice of law has evolved by keeping pace with and adapting to technological advances. That evolution can be traced through the tools that lawyers have worked with over time:
- From the earliest days until the nineteenth century, lawyers worked with pen and ink.
- The invention of the typewriter in the nineteenth century transformed legal drafting.
- In the 1950s, Dictaphones streamlined correspondence.
- In the 1970s, word processors reshaped drafting and document management.
- By the 1990s, digital case-management systems and early legal research databases had become standard, enabling firms to organise and retrieve large volumes of data.
Each of these developments changed how lawyers worked, but none displaced the central role of legal judgment. That remains true today as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes part of everyday legal practice.
Nothing has prompted as much discussion within the profession as AI. It has already found its way into many lawyers’ daily routines, and its use will inevitably grow. The central question is no longer whether AI will be used, but how it should be used within a profession built on analysis, judgment, and accountability.
Used properly, AI offers clear benefits. It can significantly accelerate legal research, assist with drafting, and allow lawyers to test ideas before investing substantial time and resources. It supports early case assessment, can review large volumes of material efficiently, and can identify patterns that would take a human far longer to detect. Many of the Lexlink member firms already use AI-driven review tools with positive results.
At the same time, AI presents real risks.
AI systems remain works in progress. It is important to be wary that it often produces confident answers without the requisite or sometimes erroneous foundation. Confidence does not equate to accuracy, and any lawyer who relies on AI outputs at face value risks making serious mistakes. AI must support legal judgment, not replace it.
Confidentiality is another major concern. Firms must know precisely where their data is stored, who can access it, and how long it is retained. AI systems must not be allowed to ingest privileged or confidential material without strict safeguards and clear contractual protections, particularly in light of GDPR and other data-protection regimes.
I am also concerned about any erosion of reasoned decision-making, which lies at the heart of legal advice. A lawyer must be able to show how a conclusion was reached, and AI must not obscure the reasoning behind key decisions. Clients are entitled to advice that can be explained, justified, and defended. A profession built on evidence and analysis cannot depend on outputs that offer no clear reasoning.
Looking ahead, I expect the next phase of AI in legal practice to be more collaborative than disruptive. AI tools will help firms model potential outcomes across multiple jurisdictions. They will also support multilingual research with greater accuracy than earlier translation technologies. They will enable global networks such as Lexlink to compare trends in real time and present clients with more informed, nuanced perspectives.
Clients increasingly expect speed, but not at the expense of care. Firms that use AI within clear professional and ethical boundaries will be best placed to meet that expectation while preserving the trust on which legal work depends.
I do not see AI as a rival to legal judgment. It is a powerful but imperfect tool that can raise standards when guided with discipline and healthy scepticism.
The legal profession has successfully integrated every major technological advance it has encountered. I see no reason why AI should be different, provided we remain curious, cautious, and firmly in control.
