Author(s): David Ka Wai Chui
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 3
Citation: IJLSSS 3(3) 20
Page No: 290 – 307
ABSTRACT
Legal Industrialisation—the transformation of legal services from bespoke craftsmanship into standardised, technology-driven systems—represents a paradigm shift with profound societal implications. This paper examines the systemic transformation of legal services from bespoke practice to industrialised production models. Driven by way of economic pressures, globalisation, and AI advancements, the study identifies key benefits including improved access to justice and efficiency gains, while highlighting challenges which including professional displacement and ethical risks. The research employs real examples of legal process outsourcing firms, AI contract platforms, and document automation services to demonstrate real-world impacts. While industrialisation democratises legal access, its unchecked adoption jeopardises legal quality, ethical standards, and professional judgment. Findings recommend that balanced integration of industrialised systems with contextual legal values offers the most sustainable path forward for the legal profession.
1. INTRODUCTION
The legal profession stands at an inflection point comparable to the industrial revolution’s impact on production. The term “legal industrialisation” describes the change from craft-based, bespoke services to standardised, technology-mediated systems. This shift reflects broader patterns of service sector industrialisation observed by Brynjolfsson and McAfee[1], where digital technologies enable mass customisation and scalability. In legal contexts, this shift occurs through three key developments: the automation of routine legal work through artificial intelligence[2], the commodification of legal products[3], and the globalisation of legal labor through outsourcing arrangements.[4]
Historically, the legal profession has shown remarkable continuity in its working methods. As documents, from the medieval inns of court to modern law firms, legal practice emphasised personalised counsel and mastery of specialised knowledge.[5] However, twenty-first-century economic pressures have made this model unsustainable for many legal needs.[6] The shift to computer-based legal research began with systems such as LexisNexis in the 1970s and marked the first wave of transformation[7], while contemporary AI applications represent its acceleration.[8] Susskind[9] characterises this as a transition from “bespoke to commoditised” legal services.
The impact of this transformation reaches beyond legal professionals to society at large. Barton’s economic analysis demonstrates how industrialised legal services can significantly cut costs.[10] Also, the American Bar Association highlights that 54.4% of attorneys perceive time-saving by using AI-based technology-assisted solutions.[11] Such efficiency gains promise to address what is identified as the “Justice Gap” where 86% of civil legal needs remain unmet among low-income populations.[12] However, these benefits come with significant disruption. A study estimates that 47% of total U.S employment could be at risk due to automation, including legal tasks which threaten the traditional legal career.[13] Additionally, algorithmic legal systems could reinforce and worsen existing biases if they are not carefully designed.[14]
This paper addresses four research objectives through doctrinal and empirical analysis. First, it develops a comprehensive definition of legal industrialisation that distinguishes it from simply legal technology adoption. Second, it evaluates how industrialisation affects access to justice by analysing recent implementation data. Third, it examines the industrialised legal services to identify best practices and pitfalls through impacts and challenges. Finally, it combines the projections about future trends with contemporary regulatory proposals to develop balanced policy recommendations. The analysis draws on legal scholarship, economic data, and real-world examples from various jurisdictions to provide a comprehensive assessment of this transformative process.
2. THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL INDUSTRIALISATION
2.1 CORE CHARACTERISTICS
Legal industrialisation represents more than just the adoption of new tools, as it constitutes a fundamental reorganisation of legal service delivery systems. It is characterised by three transformative features that distinguish it from traditional practice: standardisation, automation, and mass production.
STANDARDISATION OF LEGAL SERVICES
First, standardization involves creating uniform legal documents and processes that can be reused across multiple cases or clients. The legal standardisation has replaced bespoke drafting with pre-designed templates for routine documents. Platforms such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer are examples of this trend as they offer automated wills and incorporation documents that can significantly reduce costs compared to traditional firms.[15]
AUTOMATION AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
Second, automation of routine tasks, including document review, contract analysis, and legal research, now handles tasks that were previously done by junior lawyers. AI-driven platforms can process vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and provide insights that would be time-consuming for human lawyers. A study on contract review software found that AI systems achieved 94% accuracy compared to 85% for human lawyers, while completing the work 80% faster.[16] Markovic[17] extends this to litigation prediction tools, demonstrating their growing influence in case strategy decisions by providing data driven insights into potential legal outcomes.
MASS PRODUCTION OF LEGAL PRODUCTS
Third, legal industrialisation has led to high-volume production of legal products such as templates for contracts, standardised legal advice, and automated compliance checks. This mass production allows for scalability and to provide legal services to a broader range of people and businesses at a lower cost. E-discovery platforms can process millions of documents for large scale litigation.[18] For instance, Relativity’s eDiscovery AI platform claims to achieve up to 96% precision and 98% recall in document review processes that save time and expenses typically spent on manual document review, showing the technology’s effectiveness in streamlining e-discovery processes.[19] Similarly, Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) firms demonstrate how this industrial model has globalised, it is noted that by using LPO for appropriate legal tasks, corporate legal departments can achieve substantial cost reductions, reallocate high-level resources to more complex tasks, and access subject-matter specialists in common legal fields such as e-discovery, legal research, and contract management.[20] For instance, Indian LPOs handling U.S. legal work achieve 30-50% operational cost savings.[21] This industrial-scale production fundamentally alters the economics of legal practice.
2.2 COMPARISON WITH TRADITIONAL LEGAL PRACTICE
Traditional legal practice is based on bespoke services, where lawyers provide personalised advice tailored to each client’s unique needs. Legal industrialisation shifts away from this approach, focusing instead on efficiency, scalability, and accessibility.
The contrast between industrialised and traditional models reflects deeper philosophical divides. For instance, Kronman’s conception of legal professionalism emphasises “practical wisdom” as a key virtue of legal professionalism, this ability to make context-sensitive judgments that resist standardisation.[22] This practical wisdom requires a deep understanding of human affairs and the capacity to deliberate thoughtfully in complex situations.[23] Traditional firms uphold this through customised advice and billable-hour pricing that values human expertise.
On the flip side, industrialised models turn these priorities. Fixed-fee pricing structures that are utilised by 72% of legal tech platforms, prioritise predictability over personalisation.[24] Although this certainly lowers legal costs, some practitioners are concerned about the potential erosion of professional judgment in pursuit of efficiency.[25] This ongoing tension between artisan and industrial values continues to reshape legal markets worldwide.
2.3 DRIVERS OF LEGAL INDUSTRIALISATION
Three interconnected forces propel this transformation:
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY DEMANDS
The rising cost of legal service has made it challenging for many people and businesses to access the legal help they need. Industrialisation steps in to tackle this issue by making legal solutions more affordable, cutting down the expenses tied to traditional legal services. Nowadays, corporate clients prioritise cost control, with a whopping 75% of legal departments saying that their main focus for digitisation is to enhance their legal technology or data strategies.[26] Additionally, the 2024 Future Ready Lawyer Survey indicates that 73% of corporate legal departments plan to boost their investment in AI over the next three years, highlighting their commitment to using technology for greater efficiency.[27]
GLOBALISATION AND CROSS-BORDER NEEDS
As business and society become more interconnected globally, there is a growing need for legal solutions that can handle cross-border issues. Legal industrialisation provides the infrastructure needed to manage these complexities efficiently, providing standardised legal frameworks that can be applied across different jurisdictions.[28] With the rise of blockchain technology, including smart contracts, we can now facilitate borderless transactions. Thanks to blockchain’s decentralized and transparent nature, digital agreements can be executed automatically across borders without needing traditional intermediaries. This innovation not only cuts costs but also speeds up processes and builds trust among parties from various jurisdictions.[29]
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS
Technological developments, particularly in AI, data analytics, and machine learning, have enabled the automation and standardisation of legal services. These technologies lead to faster processing, better accuracy, and greater scalability in legal work.[30] AI natural language processing now matches human contract review accuracy, while cloud-based legal platforms support 24/7 accessibility across jurisdictions ensuring that the legal work can be accessed anytime, anywhere.[31] These innovations make industrialised models both possible and inevitable.
3. IMPACTS OF LEGAL INDUSTRIALISATION
The way legal services are being industrialised has sparked some major changes in the legal field, bringing along both impressive advantages and notable challenges. These impacts manifest most visibly in three key areas: accessibility and affordability of legal services, efficiency of operations, and systemic risks to quality and employment. A closer examination of empirical data and real-life examples reveals the complex trade-offs that come with this shift.
One of the most standout outcomes of legal industrialisation has been the significant improvement in access to justice. Online legal service platforms reduce costs for basic legal services and increase accessibility. These platforms provide budget-friendly options compared to traditional law firms and offer a range of online resources and consultations.[32] This price drop has democratised legal assistance, particularly for small businesses and individuals. According to the Legal Services Corporation’s 2022 Justice Gap Report, 92% of low-income Americans struggle to get legal help for their civil legal issues, including but not limited to consumer issues, health care, housing, and income maintenance.[33] AI-driven legal tools like chatbots for legal advice and guided self-help platforms directly fill this gap by offering 24/7 access to legal databases and support.[34] For instance, tools like DoNotPay and LawDroid allow users to contest parking tickets, draft wills, or understand tenant rights—all at little or no cost. The benefits are also reaching developing countries, where structural challenges such as a lack of legal professionals, disparities between urban and rural services, and high costs have contributed to the justice gap. Some legal platforms, such as BarefootLaw, even offered accessible SMS-based legal assistance through digital platforms to Uganda’s communities where lack of internet access. [35] Nevertheless, those tools support linguistic and cultural inclusivity as they are designed with user-friendly interfaces and regional language support, so they enable broader participation among those people with low literacy or limited legal education.[36]
The efficiency gains brought from industrialized legal processes have been groundbreaking. AI-powered contract review systems can complete due diligence tasks 100 times faster than human lawyers, all while maintaining an impressive accuracy rate of 94%.[37] In litigation support, a comparison of electronic and manual document review accross 3,337,500 pages illustrates how cost-effective electronic discovery can be. the cost-efficiency of electronic discovery. Typically, a manual review can only tackle about 1,400 pages a day, spending less than 20 seconds on each page, which means only around 20% of relevant or privileged content gets identified correctly. Finishing the first-tier review would take roughly 26,700 hours, racking up a bill of about USD$ 2,002,500 at a rate of USD$ 65 per hour.[38] This does not even factor in other necessary tasks like training, quality control, and preparing privilege logs, which can push the total cost to $3,430,425.[39] In contrast, e-discovery review could accomplish the same tasks for just $1,182,802, making it a far more cost-effective and reliable option.[40] Corporate legal departments have been particularly aggressive adopters, with 72% of Fortune 1000 companies agreeing that industrialised AI tools save costs for their in-house legal work.[41]
While these benefits come with notable trade-offs and emerging risks. The impacts on the labour market have hit traditional legal professionals. The Law Society (of England and Wales) analysis forecasts a 50% decline in full-time legal job positions by 2050.[42] Junior lawyers, paralegals, and legal assistants are experiencing shrinking demand for entry-level roles, especially in large law firms and corporate legal departments, as automation of routine tasks replaces such traditional positions.[43] Besides, junior lawyers face a reduction in training opportunities as document review work, which used to be a cornerstone of legal apprenticeship, is now handled by advanced technology. These changes raise important questions about how the next generation of lawyers will develop legal practice experience.
AI legal industrialised tools also raise some serious quality concerns, particularly regarding their inability to fully understand legal context, jurisdictional differences, and subtle reasoning that human lawyer excel at. One major issue is the lack of contextual and interpretive reasoning that human lawyers bring to legal practice. Just as a jurisdiction’s laws need to resonate with its community and be crafted by its legal experts to be accepted, Large Language Model (LLM) is only suitable for a jurisdiction if its training data reflects the context of that jurisdiction’s legal professionals. While technical factors such as where the data is processed (silicon location) or how dynamic datasets operate (stochastic datasets), can introduce risks to access or reliability, the real meansure of the AI depends entirely on how well its training data represents the population it serves. Therefore, an AI tool’s suitability is determined by the source and representativeness of its training data.[44] As a result, the suitability of an AI tool is largely determined by the quality and representativeness of its training data which means that while AI-generated documents and advice might seem technically sound, they can often be legally flawed or unenforceable. This is particularly concerning in critical areas like wills, contracts, and compliance, where even minor omissions or misinterpretations can lead to significant repercussions.
The risk of data contamination and inadequate evaluation also cannot be ignored. Datasets sourced from the public domain run the risk of “test data leakage,” as existing LLMs may have already been trained on this information, which could skew performance scores.[45] Additionally, evaluation methods are insufficient: hand-engineered rules for extracting answers can fall short, and relying solely on Rouge-L for generative tasks only captures surface-level similarities, failing to assess the legal merit, accuracy, or reasoning quality of outputs without effective automated methods currently available to evaluate these critical legal aspects.
Another concern is that generative AI tools is their tendency to create what are known as “hallucinations”— essentially, confidently inaccurate information, which is particularly dangerous in legal situations where precision and authority are paramount. Research found that these hallucinations occur frequently, with rates ranging from 58% and 88% depending on the model used, particularly when addressing specific legal questions across different jurisdictions.[46] A notable example of this occurred in 2023, when two attorneys in New York faced sanctions for submitting a court filing that cited non-existent case law generated by ChatGPT.[47] This incident highlights the malpractice risks that can arise when legal professionals rely on AI without rigorous verification.
Ultimately, legal industrialization presents the profession with irreconcilable tensions between access and quality, efficiency and employment, innovation and ethics. A balanced regulatory approach that promotes technological advancements for routine legal matters while preserving human oversight for complex cases might be the most sustainable path forward. As the legal sector continues to evolve, it is essential for policymakers to stay alert and make sure these transformations expand access to justice without compromising legal quality or professional standards.
4. THE FUTURE OF LEGAL INDUSTRIALISATION
The future of legal industrialisation is being shaped by rapid technological advancement, changing client expectations, and evolving regulatory environments. A few key trends are set to define its next phase.
4.1 ADVANCED AI INTEGRATION AND AUTOMATION
The integration of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 is now reshaping core legal tasks. We can expect to see a wider embrace of generative AI, machine learning, and natural language processing tools throughout various legal functions.[48] These technologies will move beyond simple tasks like document reviews and contract analysises toward more complex processes such as predicting litigation outcomes, modeling legal strategies, and even providing decision support in judicial settings.[49] In the future, these tools will not only increase speed and reduce costs but also enable lawyers to transition from mundane tasks to more strategic advisory roles. Nevertheless, human oversight will still be crucial to maintain legal accuracy, ensure ethical compliance, and apply contextual judgment.
4.2 RISE OF PREDICTIVE LEGAL ANALYTICS
Predictive analytics is evolving from retrospective insight to forward-looking strategy.. Law firms and corporate legal departments are increasingly leveraging data to anticipate case outcomes, estimate litigation expenses, evaluate risk, and allocate legal budgets more efficiently.[50] These insights will streamline settlements, improve resource distribution, and refine legal strategy with larger empirical precision.
4.3 EXPANSION OF STANDARDISED, MODULAR LEGAL PRODUCTS
In the past, legal advice was tailored and time-consuming. Legal services will increasingly be delivered through modular, scalable products such as automated compliance tools, standardised contracts, and interactive legal guides. This industrialised approach will drive down costs, increase accessibility, and enable firms to serve more clients without proportionally increasing headcount. Platforms such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer already offer consumer-facing versions of these but B2B adoption, especially in the compliance, HR, and finance sectors is expected to grow.[51]
4.4 DECENTRALISATION, BLOCKCHAIN APPLICATIONS AND SMART CONTRACTS
Blockchain will enhance legal processes that hinge on trust, traceability, and automation.Technologies like blockchain, particularly smart contracts, are expected to take on a bigger role in areas such as transactional law, supply chain management, and intellectual property rights.[52] The manual contract can also be replaced with smart contracts that contain self-executing code, which triggers actions when specific conditions are met.[53] As digital agreements become more self-executing and auditable, legal professionals will transition from drafting to auditing and coding these instruments. This may minimise transactional friction but could possibly cause new legal issues related to enforceability, dispute resolution, and jurisdiction.
4.5 REGULATORY INNOVATION AND ETHICAL OVERSIGHT
The increasing prevalence of AI, automation, and alternative legal service providers will drive regulation reform to existing traditional legal practice frameworks.[54] Key regulatory developments may include but not limited to licensing of AI-infused legal tools, expanded duty of technology competence for lawyers and guidelines regarding algorithmic fairness, transparency, and bias. New frameworks may be expected for data privacy, AI accountability, cross-border compliance, and professional standards.[55]
4.6 HYBRID HUMAN-AI LEGAL TEAMS
Instead of replacing lawyers, AI tools will increasingly serve as collaborators.[56] Human Legal teams will be made up of lawyers, technologists, and data scientists who will work in a co-managed capacity to direct workflows. Typical junior legal roles may change from perform tasks such as basic document review, supervising the outputs of AI, curating data, and ensuring ethical use of technology. There will also be some new roles within legal profession including legal computer scientists, AI compliance officers and legal knowledge engineers.
5. CONCLUSION
The industrialisation of legal services represents a monumental change. A historic sea change that restructures the profession away from the traditional craft-based model towards standardization and technology-driven systems. This analysis has demonstrated that legal industrialisation that characterised by standardisation, automation, and mass production, offers transformative potential to enhance access to justice and operational efficiency. The empirical evidence confirms significant cost reductions and expanded broader reach of service, directly addressing the continuing global justice gap where unmet civil legal needs exceed 86% of vulnerable populations.
However, these benefits are counterbalanced by substantial risks. The automation of routine tasks threatens traditional career paths, with projections indicating a 50% decline in legal positions by 2050 and less training opportunities for junior lawyers. Crucially, the deployment of AI introduces critical challenges to legal quality and ethics such as hallucinations and inaccuracy, contextual blindness to jurisdictional nuance and human judgment, inherent biases from training data that compromise fairness, and inability to evaluate frameworks assessing legal reasoning.
The tension between access and quality, efficiency and employment, illustrates the irreconcilable pressures of the profession. Looking to the future, trends like predictive analytics, blockchain integration, and generative AI will accelerate industrialisation, making thoughtful regulation imperative. Policymakers must facilitate the development of hybrid human-AI frameworks that leverage technology for scalability while mandating human oversight for complex, high-stakes matters. Regulatory innovation that focused on AI accountability, data integrity, and cross-border compliance should incentivise innovation for routine services without sacrificing ethical standards. Ultimately, the future of law hinges not on resisting industrialisation, but on strategically harnessing its power to democratize justice while rigorously safeguarding legal integrity, professional judgment, and equitable outcomes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Articles/Books/Report
Barton, Benjamin, Glass Half Full: The Decline and Renewal of the Legal Profession (Oxford University Press, 2015)
Barton, Benjamin H and Deborah L Rhode, ‘Access to Justice and Routine Legal Services: New Technologies Meet Bar Regulators’ (2019) 70(4) Hastings Law Journal 962
Brynjolfsson, Erik and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age (W.W. Norton, 2014)
Branting, L.K. et.al. ‘Scalable and explainable legal prediction’ Artifical Intelligence and Law 2021 (29) 213
Casey, Michael J and Paul Vigna, The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and the Future of Everything (St Martin’s Press, 2018)
Calaguas, Mark ‘2024 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Artificial Intelligence’ American Bar Association (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/tech-report/2024/2024-artificial-intelligence-techreport/>
Chien Colleen and Miriam Kim, ‘Generative AI and Legal Aid: Results from a Field Study and 100 Use Cases’ (Public Law Research Paper, University of California, Berkley, March 2024)
Dahl, Matthew et.al. ‘Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models’ (2024) 16(1) Journal of Legal Analysis
Draper Chris and Nicky Gillibrand, ‘The Potential for Jurisdictional Challenges to AI or LLM Training Datasets’ (Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Access to Justice Paper AI4AJ 2023, 19 June 2023)
EY Global, Amid Disruption: How Can Legal Departments Innovate with Confidence? Study Report ( April 2025).
Frey, Carl Benedikt and Michael A Osborne, ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?’ (Working Paper No 114, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 17 September 2013)
Fei, Zhiwei et.al. ‘LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models’ (Paper arXiv:2309.16289, Concell University, 28 September 2023)
Hadfield, Gillian, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2017)
Hadfield, Gillian, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Are the Real Bottleneck in the Law (Oxford University Press, 2017)
Katsh, M. Ethan, The Electronic Media and the Transformation of Law (Oxford University Press, 1989)
Krishnan, Jayanth K, ‘Outsourcing and the Globalizing Legal Profession’ (2007) 48(6) William and Mary Law Review 2189
Kronman, Anthony, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession (Harvard University Press, 1993)
LawGeex, Comparing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence to Human Lawyers in the Review of Standard Business Contracts (Report, February 2018)
Legal Services Corporation, The Justice Gap: Measuring the Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans, Report (2022)
Legg Michael and Felicity bell, ‘Artifical Intelligence and The Legal Profession: Becoming The AI-Enhanced Lawyer’ (2019) 38(2) The University of Tasmania Law Review 42
Markovic, Milan, ‘AI in Legal Practice’ (2021) 91(4) Fordham Law Review 1085.
Milhaupt, Curtis J and Katharina Pistor, ‘Legal Infrastructure for the New Global Marketplace’ (2008) 23(1) Law and Social Inquiry 1
Remus, Dana and Frank S. Levy, ‘Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law’ (2016) 77(1) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 1
Ribstein, Larry E, ‘The Death of Big Law’ (2010) 2010(3) Wisconsin Law Review 749
Selkova, Anastasia ‘Would Online Legal Services Guarantee the Availability of Justice and Legal Aid?’ (134 SHS Web of Conferences Paper 00035, 2022)
She Brian, ‘Efficiency, Ethics, and Algorithms: The Implications of AI on the Legal Profession’ (SSRN Scholarly Paper No 4461276/2023)
Susskind, Richard, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press, 2008)
The Law Society, Future Worlds 2050: Images of the Future Worlds Facing the Legal Profession 2020–2030 (The Law Society Report, 2020)
Thomson Reuters Institute, 2023 Legal Department Operations Index, Report (2023)
Thomson Reuters, How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025), Report (January 2025)
Verges, Teresa J and Christine Lazaro, ‘Technology in Legal Practice: Keeping Ethical Obligations in Mind’ (Summer 2019) 3(3) The Journal of PLI Press 577
Wolters Kluwer, Future Ready Lawyer Survey 2024: Legal professionals confident in managing AI-driven changes to business of law, Report (24 October 2024)
Zarsky, Tal Z, ‘The Trouble with Algorithmic Decisions: An Analytic Road Map to Examine Efficiency and Fairness in Automated and Opaque Decision Making’ (2016) 41(1) Science, Technology & Human Values 118
B Cases
Mata v. Avianca Inc. 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (SDNY, United States District Court 2023)
C Legislation
D Treaties
E Other
Azurit Foundation, ‘BarefootLaw: Empowering Communities through Free Legal Support’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://azuritfoundation.org/case-studies/barefootlaw/>
Calaguas, Mark ‘2024 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Artificial Intelligence’ American Bar Association (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/tech-report/2024/2024-artificial-intelligence-techreport/>
Deloitte, ‘Implementing a Corporate Legal Process Outsourcing Solution’ (Web Page, 2024) <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/operations/articles/implementing-a-corporate-legal-process-outsourcing-solution.html>
Hallene, Ashley and Jeffery Allen ‘Using AI for Predictive Analytics in Litigation’ American Bar Association (Web Page, 2024) < https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/resources/voice-of-experience/2024-october/using-ai-for-predictive-analytics-in-litigation/>
IBM, ‘What are smart contracts on blockchain?’ (Web Page, unknown date) < https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/smart-contracts>
Inductus Legal, ‘The Legal Revolution: Why India Is the Go-To Destination for LPO’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://inductuslegal.com/the-legal-revolution-why-india-is-the-go-to-destination-for-lpo/>
Juelsgaard Interllectual Property and Innovation Clinic, ‘Use of AI Generally in Legal Practice’ Standford Law School (Web Page, 2023) <https://law.stanford.edu/juelsgaard-intellectual-property-and-innovation-clinic/use-of-ai-generally-in-legal-practice/>
LexisNexis, New Survey Data from LexisNexis Points to Seismic Shifts in Law Firm Business Models and Corporate Legal Expectations Due to Generative AI (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/new-survey-data-from-lexisnexis-points-to-seismic-shifts-in-law-firm-business-models-and-corporate-legal-expectations-due-to-generative-ai>
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and ACT Litigation Services, ‘Solutions to Exploding Discovery Costs That Imperil Litigation Affordability and Court Access’ (Web Page, 2010) <https://lewisbrisbois.com/assets/uploads/page-files/Solutions.pdf>
McCarthy, Madi and Shannon Cain, ‘Is AI the new junior lawyer?’ Lawyers Weekly (Web Page, 2025) < https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/sme-law/41619-is-ai-the-new-junior-lawyer>
Market Report Analytics, ‘Future Prospects for B2B Information Services Growth’ (Web Page, 2025) < https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/b2b-information-services-56008#>
PWC, “‘Real’ Laws for Artificial Intelligence- An introductory guide to AI regulation” PWC (Web Page, 2024) < https://www.pwc.com.au/services/artificial-intelligence/regulating-ai-article.pdf>
Relativity, ‘eDiscovery AI’ (Web Page, 2024) <https://apphub.relativity.com/solutions/ediscovery-ai>
Silicon Valley Innovation Centre ‘Unlocking the Future: How Blockchain and Smart Contracts are Reshaping Industries’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://siliconvalley.center/blog/how-blockchain-and-smart-contracts-are-reshaping-industries>
Wood, Johnny ‘This AI outperformed 20 corporate lawyers at legal work’ (Web Page, 2018) <https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/11/this-ai-outperformed-20-corporate-lawyers-at-legal-work/.>
[1] Erick Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee , The Second Machine Age (W.W. Norton, 2014) 89-92.
[2] Juelsgaard Interllectual Property and Innovation Clinic, ‘Use of AI Generally in Legal Practice’ Standford Law School (Web Page, 2023) <https://law.stanford.edu/juelsgaard-intellectual-property-and-innovation-clinic/use-of-ai-generally-in-legal-practice/>.
[3] Larry E Ribstein, ‘The Death of Big Law’ (2010) 2010(3) Wisconsin Law Review 749, 790.
[4] Jayanth K Krishnan, ‘Outsourcing and the Globalizing Legal Profession’ (2007) 48(6) William and Mary Law Review 2189, 2246.
[5] Anthony Kronman, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession (Harvard University Press, 1993) 3–27.
[6] Gillian Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2017) 45–156.
[7] M. Ethan Katsh, The Electronic Media and the Transformation of Law (Oxford University Press, 1989) 105–110.
[8] Dana Remus and Frank S. Levy, ‘Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law’ (2016) 77(1) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 1, 10.
[9] Richard Susskind, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press, 2008) 27–58.
[10] Benjamin Barton, Glass Half Full: The Decline and Renewal of the Legal Profession (Oxford University Press, 2015) 104–110.
[11] Mark Calaguas ‘2024 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report: Artificial Intelligence’ American Bar Association (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/tech-report/2024/2024-artificial-intelligence-techreport/>.
[12] Legal Services Corporation, The Justice Gap: Measuring the Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans, Report (2022).
[13] Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A Osborne, ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?’ (Working Paper No 114, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 17 September 2013) 38.
[14] Tal Z Zarsky, ‘The Trouble with Algorithmic Decisions: An Analytic Road Map to Examine Efficiency and Fairness in Automated and Opaque Decision Making’ (2016) 41(1) Science, Technology & Human Values 118, 132.
[15] Gillian Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Are the Real Bottleneck in the Law (Oxford University Press, 2017) 150.
[16] LawGeex, Comparing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence to Human Lawyers in the Review of Standard Business Contracts (Report, February 2018) 1–2.
[17] Milan Markovic, ‘AI in Legal Practice’ (2021) 91(4) Fordham Law Review 1085, 1094.
[18] Benjamin H Barton and Deborah L Rhode, ‘Access to Justice and Routine Legal Services: New Technologies Meet Bar Regulators’ (2019) 70(4) Hastings Law Journal 962, 984.
[19] Relativity, ‘eDiscovery AI’ (Web Page, 2024) <https://apphub.relativity.com/solutions/ediscovery-ai>.
[20] Deloitte, ‘Implementing a Corporate Legal Process Outsourcing Solution’ (Web Page, 2024) <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/operations/articles/implementing-a-corporate-legal-process-outsourcing-solution.html>.
[21] Inductus Legal, ‘The Legal Revolution: Why India Is the Go-To Destination for LPO’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://inductuslegal.com/the-legal-revolution-why-india-is-the-go-to-destination-for-lpo/>.
[22] Anthony T. Kronman, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession (Harvard University Press, 1993).
[23] Ibid.
[24] Thomson Reuters Institute, 2023 Legal Department Operations Index, Report (2023).
[25] Brian She, ‘Efficiency, Ethics, and Algorithms: The Implications of AI on the Legal Profession’ (SSRN Scholarly Paper No 4461276/2023).
[26] EY Global, Amid Disruption: How Can Legal Departments Innovate with Confidence? Study Report (2025).
[27] Wolters Kluwer, Future Ready Lawyer Survey 2024: Legal professionals confident in managing AI-driven changes to business of law, Report (2024).
[28] Curtis J Milhaupt and Katharina Pistor, ‘Legal Infrastructure for the New Global Marketplace’ (2008) 23(1) Law and Social Inquiry 1.
[29] Michael J Casey and Paul Vigna, The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and the Future of Everything (St Martin’s Press, 2018).
[30] LawGeex, Comparing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence to Human Lawyers in the Review of Standard Business Contracts, Report (February 2018) 1–2.
[31] Teresa J Verges and Christine Lazaro, ‘Technology in Legal Practice: Keeping Ethical Obligations in Mind’ (Summer 2019) 3(3) The Journal of PLI Press 577, 296.
[32] Anastasia Selkova, ‘Would Online Legal Services Guarantee the Availability of Justice and Legal Aid?’ (134 SHS Web of Conferences Paper00035, 2022).
[33] Legal Services Corporation, The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans, Report, (April 2022) 7-8.
[34] Colleen Chien and Miriam Kim, ‘Generative AI and Legal Aid: Results from a Field Study and 100 Use Cases’ (Public Law Research Paper, University of California, Berkley, March 2024) 9-10.
[35] Azurit Foundation, ‘BarefootLaw: Empowering Communities through Free Legal Support’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://azuritfoundation.org/case-studies/barefootlaw/>.
[36] Anastasia Selkova, ‘Would Online Legal Services Guarantee the Availability of Justice and Legal Aid?’ (134 SHS Web of Conferences Paper00035, 2022).
[37] Johnny Wood, ‘This AI outperformed 20 corporate lawyers at legal work’ (Web Page, 2018) <https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/11/this-ai-outperformed-20-corporate-lawyers-at-legal-work/.>.
[38] Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and ACT Litigation Services, ‘Solutions to Exploding Discovery Costs That Imperil Litigation Affordability and Court Access’ (Web Page, 2010) <https://lewisbrisbois.com/assets/uploads/page-files/Solutions.pdf>.
[39] ibid.
[40] ibid.
[41] LexisNexis, ‘New Survey Data from LexisNexis Points to Seismic Shifts in Law Firm Business Models and Corporate Legal Expectations Due to Generative AI’ (Web Page, 2024) <https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/new-survey-data-from-lexisnexis-points-to-seismic-shifts-in-law-firm-business-models-and-corporate-legal-expectations-due-to-generative-ai>.
[42] The Law Society, Future Worlds 2050: Images of the Future Worlds Facing the Legal Profession 2020–2030 (The Law Society Report, 2020) 50.
[43] Madi McCarthy and Shannon Cain, ‘Is AI the new junior lawyer?’ Lawyers Weekly (Web Page, 2025) < https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/sme-law/41619-is-ai-the-new-junior-lawyer>.
[44] Chris Draper and Nicky Gillibrand, ‘The Potential for Jurisdictional Challenges to AI or LLM Training Datasets’ (Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Access to Justice Paper AI4AJ 2023, 19 June 2023).
[45] Zhiwei Fei et.al. ‘LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models’ (Paper arXiv:2309.16289, Concell University, 28 September 2023)
[46] Matthew Dahl et.al. ‘Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models’ (2024) 16(1) Journal of Legal Analysis 64, 93.
[47] Mata v. Avianca Inc. 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (SDNY, United States District Court 2023).
[48] Stanford Law School, Use of AI Generally in Legal Practice (Web Page, 2023) <https://law.stanford.edu/juelsgaard-intellectual-property-and-innovation-clinic/use-of-ai-generally-in-legal-practice/>.
[49] L.K. Branting. et.al. ‘Scalable and explainable legal prediction’ 2021 (29) Artifical Intelligence and Law 213, 238.
[50] Ashley Hallene and Jeffery Allen ‘Using AI for Predictive Analytics in Litigation’ American Bar Association (Web Page, 2024) < https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/resources/voice-of-experience/2024-october/using-ai-for-predictive-analytics-in-litigation/>.
[51] Market Report Analytics ‘Future Prospects for B2B Information Services Growth’ (Web Page, 2025) < https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/b2b-information-services-56008#>.
[52] Silicon Valley Innovation Centre ‘Unlocking the Future: How Blockchain and Smart Contracts are Reshaping Industries’ (Web Page, 2023) <https://siliconvalley.center/blog/how-blockchain-and-smart-contracts-are-reshaping-industries>.
[53] IBM, ‘What are smart contracts on blockchain?’ (Web Page, unknown date) <https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/smart-contracts>.
[54] PWC, “‘Real’ Laws for Artificial Intelligence- An introductory guide to AI regulation”(Web Page, 2024) < https://www.pwc.com.au/services/artificial-intelligence/regulating-ai-article.pdf>.
[55] Thomson Reuters, How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025), Report (16 January 2025).
[56] Michael Legg & Felicity bell, ‘Artifical Intelligence and The Legal Profession: Becoming The AI-Enhanced Lawyer’ (2019) 38(2) The University of Tasmania Law Review 42, 59.