AI Can’t Replace Your Lawyer: How LawBase Uses AI

Introduction

On 14 August 2025, the LawBase team attended the Australian Law Forum hosted by Lawyers Weekly. The focus of the forum was on the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) generally but also within the legal profession and what this means for legal professionals and their clients moving forward.

The commencement session included an address from the Australian Law Reform Commission President, The Hon. Justice Mordy Bromberg, who opened with a quote from Immanuel Kant:

“Sensation is unorganised stimulus, perception is organised sensation, conception is organised perception, science is organised knowledge, wisdom is organised life: each is a greater degree of order, and sequence and unity.”[1]

Throughout the address, Justice Bromberg continued to return to this idea and emphasised that wisdom is far more valuable than intelligence, highlighting the continuing and growing need for the legal profession to complement artificial intelligence in the areas that AI cannot replicate; wisdom.

[1] Australian Law Reform Commission, The Challenge of AI for Law Reform and the Legal Profession, (Transcript, 14 August 2025).

AI as a Tool for Efficiency and Why it Can’t Replace your Lawyer

As highlighted by the numerous panels and discussions held at the Australian Law Forum, there is no doubt that AI has the potential to and has already started to reshape the legal profession. AI tools can assist greatly in document review, legal research and in administrative work that requires considerable time for legal professionals. When used efficiently, this can reduce costs for clients, free up solicitors from repetitive tasks and allow solicitors to focus on legal strategy and client engagement.

At LawBase, we have implemented some AI tools to better assist in how we service clients. For example:

1. LawY integrated with LEAP assists us in large scale document review and preliminary legal research, giving our team a solid foundation for more complex legal work and giving them the opportunity to work more efficiently by removing much of their administrative load; and
2. InfoTrack’s Verification of Identity (VOI) software allows clients to complete identification checks remotely and at a time that suits them. Our team reviews the check and finalises the verification but the software streamlines this process and saves our team and our clients considerable time as compared to the traditional face-to-face or audio-visual link meetings and verifications previously conducted.

The common thread that can be seen here is that AI is simply streamlining our administrative processes and providing a baseline foundation for our team, not replacing them. Such tools are not about replacing lawyers but instead enabling them to use their skills where they are most needed.

Wisdom in Practice: The Human Element of the Legal Profession

The practice of law requires the application of judgement, ethical considerations, empathy and an understanding of the human experience. Each of these factors extend beyond what AI tools can achieve.

Wisdom in legal practice involves assisting and guiding clients through uncertainty, balancing competing interests, considering broader social and commercial implications, navigating an ever-changing legal and political landscape, and truly understanding what a client is hoping to achieve. These are areas where technology and AI cannot provide the insight and reassurance that clients seek from their legal advisors.

In addition to the above, while AI can continually grow and evolve, it is not informed by the experiences that those within the legal profession have. The wisdom that solicitors and others within the legal profession have, is informed by their own experiences personally and professionally that shape the judgement and consideration afforded to their clients and their matters that AI cannot replicate.

Problems with Overreliance on AI

With the growing use of AI tools within the legal profession, we are seeing an overreliance on AI. Such overreliance has been commented on by the judiciary in recent years.

Justice Arran Gerrard commented on the overreliance on AI in a recent Federal Court judgement, where a Western Australian solicitor was referred to the legal regulator after using AI to prepare court documents that included AI-generated case citations for cases that did not exist. Justice Gerrard in his judgement noted that this “demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence…”.[1]

In this case, the solicitor themselves had stated that they had “developed an overconfidence in relying on AI tools and failed to adequately verify the generated results”.[2]

This is not an isolated incident. According to an article published by the Guardian on 20 August 2025, there have been at least 20 cases of AI hallucinations in Australian courts since 2023.[3]

The New South Wales Chief Justice Andrew Bell has commented stating that the use of generative AI tools “may introduce added costs and complexity” to proceedings,[1] indicating that AI tools in many instances can be ineffective and detrimental to a legal proceeding.

Indeed, on 21 November 2024, NSW Supreme Court published a Practice Note SC Gen 23 and judicial guidelines in relation to the use of AI. Following feedback from members of the profession, an amended Practice Note was published on 28 January 2025.

Furthermore, the NSW Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) were amended on 3 February 2025 to regulate the use of generative AI in legal proceedings, primarily by prohibiting its use in generating the content of witness statements and affidavits, with a requirement for these documents to include a statement that AI was not used in their creation. The changes also generally prohibit the use of generative AI to create annexures or exhibits without court permission.

Conclusion

At LawBase, we believe that the future of the law is not about choosing between the humanity of the legal profession and technology, but rather it is about combining the two.

By using AI where it adds value and where it can be assessed and evaluated by solicitors and others in the legal profession, we can deliver legal services that are both efficient and personalised.

We intend to have our clients benefit from this balanced approach, with the speed and cost-effectiveness of technology, paired with the wisdom, guidance and experience of legal professionals.

AI may be able to make some processes more efficient, but it can and will never replace the trusted advice and judgement of your legal advisor.

Contracts

Relying on ChatGPT For Contracts: A Risky Legal Move

This article will explore the risks involved with having ChatGPT create contracts for you and why using a lawyer should be the preferred method.

Read more

Contracts Intellectual Property

The Chat Ts&Cs of ChatGPT

We assume that you’ve seen more ChatGPT articles than you’d care to read so we won’t go into detail about what it does. Instead we will go straight into the nuts and bolts of the terms under which it is used. What are the Ts & Cs of ChatGPT? The...

Read more