AI in the Courtroom: Why Justice Still Needs Human Advocates

The Future of Advocacy: Balancing AI and Human Presence in the Courtroom

Oral advocacy has traditionally depended on the judgment, expertise, and intuition of skilled lawyers. Now, artificial intelligence is challenging what was once seen as uniquely human. While AI promises gains in efficiency, consistency, and fairness, relying on it to automate advocacy raises serious questions about legitimacy, trust, and transparency in courtroom decisions.

The key to the future of advocacy lies in balancing technological progress with the indispensable value of human presence in the courtroom.

The Promise and Pitfalls of AI in Law

Legal work like research, contract review, and due diligence is detail-heavy and time-consuming. AI tools have transformed these tasks, allowing lawyers to analyze vast amounts of data quickly and with fewer errors. This can level the playing field, especially for small firms or legal aid centers that lack extensive resources.

However, AI has limits. Large language models (LLMs) mimic patterns but don’t truly reason. Lawyering requires making sense of information, contextualizing facts, exercising judgment, and developing strategy in uncertain situations—capabilities AI cannot fully replicate.

Automated Oral Advocacy: The Case and Its Limits

Some, like Adam Unikowsky, argue that AI can already handle oral arguments at the highest courts as competently as most human advocates. They point to advantages such as:

• Speed and composure: AI remains calm under pressure and answers clearly without losing focus.
• Consistency and accuracy: AI can access the full record and respond to unexpected questions reliably.
• Fairness: Equal AI tools on both sides could focus outcomes on case merits rather than advocate skill.
• Low risk of error: When limited to the record and briefs, AI hallucinations are less likely.
• Efficiency: Since oral argument rarely decides a case, automating it poses limited risk.

Despite these points, oral advocacy involves more than quick, clear answers. It demands reading the room, interpreting questions’ subtext, and adjusting strategy on the fly—skills rooted in experience and legal culture.

Judgment, Context, and Human Meaning

Human advocates bring more than knowledge; they bring wisdom. They know when to press a point or concede, interpret nonverbal cues, and tailor arguments to the personalities on the bench. These subtleties shape outcomes and are not replicable by AI.

Moreover, human presence ensures accountability. Judges and the public witness the reasoning behind arguments, which is crucial for the legitimacy and transparency of the legal process.

Speed and the Value of Doubt

While AI offers speed and composure, speed is not inherently a virtue in law. Deliberation, cautious reconsideration, and even doubt signal seriousness and engagement. Clients need more than answers—they need judgment and the assurance that a real person understands and champions their case.

Hallucinations: Advocacy vs. Research

AI hallucinations—fabricating facts or authorities—are a known risk in legal research and drafting. Though tightly controlled AI oral arguments may limit this risk, broader use in research demands transparency and human verification. Reliable legal practice depends on traceable sources and verifiable reasoning.

Human Connection and Legal Legitimacy

Removing human advocates risks losing the social and ethical foundation of law. Advocacy is storytelling that conveys the lived realities behind legal disputes. This emotional and moral texture anchors justice in human experience—something no algorithm can fully capture.

Level Playing Field: Potential and Challenges

AI-driven advocacy promises fairness by equalizing access to information and tools. But true fairness requires more than information parity—it requires transparent reasoning, the chance to be heard, and opportunities to challenge results.

If AI outputs are opaque or unchallengeable, equality is superficial. Moreover, automated uniformity risks stifling the creativity and diversity of legal reasoning that adapt law to evolving contexts.

Extending Access to Justice

Where AI truly excels is in expanding access to quality legal research. Small firms, community centers, and regional practitioners can benefit from immediate access to the latest authorities and legislation. This can help bridge resource gaps.

Delivering on this promise requires commitment to accuracy, transparency, and training legal professionals to critically assess AI output. Without this, benefits may not reach those who need them most.

What Lawyers Really Want from AI

Lawyers seek more than speed—they want tools that support their judgment with transparency and reliability. Every AI output must link clearly to authoritative sources and reflect legal reasoning. This enables lawyers to prepare thoroughly and defend their positions confidently.

AI that complements rather than replaces human expertise frees practitioners from routine work and allows focus on strategy and client service.

Data Security, Confidentiality, and Professional Responsibility

Legal AI systems must uphold strict confidentiality, privacy, and compliance standards. Lawyers remain responsible for the advice and advocacy they deliver, even when assisted by AI. This is especially critical in sensitive or cross-border cases.

Overreliance on AI without human oversight risks ethical lapses and malpractice, particularly among less experienced lawyers.

Education, Ethics, and the Profession’s Future

Legal education must evolve to teach not only how to use AI, but how to question and verify its outputs. Training should emphasize critical analysis and ethical responsibility.

Hybrid approaches—with AI supporting but not replacing lawyers—offer the best path forward. They combine AI’s efficiency with human judgment, empathy, and ethical sensitivity.

Autonomy and Oversight

AI-driven advocacy can enhance litigant autonomy if users understand the technology’s limits and have access to oversight and redress mechanisms. Without these safeguards, vulnerable parties may face new risks from AI errors or biases.

Court systems and regulators must set clear standards for transparency, review, and ethical conduct in AI-assisted legal processes.

The Irreplaceable Role of Human Lawyers

Lawyers are more than information conduits—they are trusted advisers, ethical actors, and stewards of justice. AI can assist with drafting and research, but humans must interpret, decide, and take responsibility for every argument.

Building the Future: Augmentation, Not Automation

The most productive future is a partnership between humans and AI. Automation can handle document review and verification while lawyers focus on strategy, ethics, and client relationships.

Professional development should prepare lawyers to use AI critically—knowing when to trust it, when to question it, and when to override it.

Justice in the Hybrid Age

Justice cannot be fully automated. AI’s role is to empower legal professionals, improving efficiency and access while preserving core professional values.

As legal practice evolves, the challenge is to adopt AI with humility, vigilance, and a renewed commitment to justice. The soul of law remains human.