AI Agents In Law: When Software Does The Legal Work

🕒 3 min read.

Could an AI draft a motion, negotiate a contract, or even advise a client? Until recently, such questions sounded like science fiction. Today, they are becoming a reality at an increasingly rapid pace. Autonomous AI agents—software systems capable of reasoning, planning, and executing multi-step tasks—are now entering the legal domain.

These systems don’t merely assist lawyers; they can independently search case law, draft filings, and even propose strategies. While their efficiency is promising, they also raise pressing legal and ethical questions: Who is responsible if an AI provides incorrect advice or breaches client confidentiality? Can software be a “lawyer”?

What Are AI Agents?

Unlike traditional chatbots that respond to prompts, AI agents operate with a degree of autonomy. They can:

Understand goals (“Draft a non-disclosure agreement under UK law”),
Break them down into smaller steps,
Use external tools or APIs (legal databases, research engines), and
Deliver structured, contextual results.

Some of the best-known prototypes include AutoGPT, LangChain agents, and newer legal-specific versions like Harvey (used by Allen & Overy) or Casetext’s CoCounsel, which can analyse documents and summarise discovery material in seconds.

This new wave represents a leap beyond “AI assistants.” We are now in the era of semi-autonomous legal performers.

How AI Agents Are Already Being Used

Leading firms and legal tech startups are already experimenting with AI agents in several areas:

Document Review & Discovery
AI agents can identify privileged documents, extract evidence, and classify materials far faster than human paralegals.
Legal Research & Drafting
Instead of manually querying databases, an AI agent can scan thousands of precedents, summarise key points, and generate draft submissions.
Client Onboarding & Compliance
Automated agents handle KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) checks with built-in compliance triggers.
Contract Lifecycle Management
From drafting to redlining to version control, AI systems can manage entire workflows with minimal oversight.

These capabilities are transforming efficiency—but also redefining the boundaries of professional responsibility.

Legal and Ethical Challenges

With great automation comes great accountability. The entry of AI agents into legal workflows introduces several unresolved issues:

1. Liability for Errors

If an AI drafts a flawed contract or misinterprets a precedent, who bears responsibility—the lawyer, the firm, or the software provider?
Current professional rules assume human oversight, but AI agents blur that assumption. Jurisdictions such as the U.S. and U.K. require “supervised use” of AI tools, yet as these systems become more autonomous, clear standards are lacking.

2. Unauthorised Practice of Law (UPL)

In most countries, only licensed individuals can provide legal advice.
An unsupervised AI that generates or interprets legal advice could technically breach UPL laws. Regulators are only beginning to grapple with whether these systems count as “persons” under the law—or mere tools.

3. Data Privacy and Confidentiality

AI models need large datasets to learn and operate effectively.
This raises serious questions: Are client materials used to train these systems? How is privilege preserved?
Firms must ensure compliance with GDPR, CCPA, and professional conduct rules around confidential information.

4. Algorithmic Bias

AI agents learn from existing data, which may include historical biases. In legal decision-making, such bias can perpetuate discrimination in case assessment or document classification.

Emerging Regulation

Governments are beginning to respond:

The EU AI Act (2025) classifies legal advisory systems as “high-risk,” requiring explainability and human oversight.
In the U.S., the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2023) stresses accountability and transparency in automated decision-making.
The UK’s AI Regulation Framework promotes a “pro-innovation” approach but emphasizes responsibility within regulated professions.

Still, these frameworks are patchwork and evolving—much like the technology itself.

The Question of Personhood

A fascinating philosophical and legal question now emerges: Could an AI ever be a “legal person”?
If corporations are legal persons and autonomous systems act independently, might the law eventually recognise “electronic persons” for certain functions?

The European Parliament’s 2017 Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics hinted at this possibility—but the idea remains controversial. Most experts argue that legal accountability must remain human, even as AI executes complex functions.

What This Means for Lawyers

Far from replacing lawyers, AI agents are likely to redefine legal practice.
Lawyers will spend less time on repetitive tasks and more on strategy, empathy, and judgment—the distinctly human dimensions of law.

However, firms must:

Establish clear AI governance policies,
Maintain audit trails for all AI-assisted outputs, and
Ensure ethical and regulatory compliance at every stage.

As one managing partner recently observed, “AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers who use AI responsibly will replace those who don’t.”

Conclusion

AI agents represent both an extraordinary opportunity and a formidable challenge for the legal profession. They hold the potential to democratize access to justice and streamline workloads—but they also force us to confront new ethical, regulatory, and philosophical frontiers.

The law, by its nature, evolves slower than technology. Yet the profession must adapt quickly enough to ensure that the values of accountability, fairness, and human judgment remain at the core of justice—even when the work is done by machines.