What Legal Professionals Need to Know About AI and How Not To Use It

For lawyers who want to stay competitive, understanding what legal professionals need to know about AI and how not to use it is no longer optional. But as powerful as this technology has become, its role is specific. AI accelerates analysis, but it cannot replace legal reasoning, strategic thinking, or the judgment that defines high-quality legal work.

From our vantage point at Mary Technology, where we support legal teams across Australia and beyond, the pattern is consistent. The firms that succeed with AI are the ones that treat it as a practical assistant, not a decision-maker, not a substitute for human judgment, and not a shortcut to avoid the deep analytical work lawyers must still perform. AI can put information in front of you faster, but it cannot determine what that information means, how it should be applied, or how it fits into the logic of a legal argument.

Lawyers who understand this boundary unlock enormous value. Those who blur the line expose themselves to unnecessary professional, ethical, and reputational risk. The goal isn’t to be afraid of AI. It’s to use it with accuracy, transparency, and control.

Below, we look at what every lawyer, legal team, and legal professional must know.

AI Accelerates Analysis, Not Legal Reasoning

Every lawyer is already familiar with the distinction between information and insight. AI has made it possible to access summaries, draft skeletons, research, and structure data in seconds, but none of that tells you what to conclude. Technology can sort, extract, cluster, and generate, but it cannot weigh options, apply statutory concepts, understand factual nuance, or interpret competing authorities to the quality of a qualified practitioner.

Legal reasoning is not a dataset problem. It is an analytical, ethical, and context-driven process grounded in professional obligations.

AI systems excel at reducing the time spent on:

• Researching case law and legislation
• Summarising material
• Extracting facts
• Sequencing events
• Highlighting patterns
• Locating information in large document sets

These are functional tasks, and when done well, they save hours of manual effort. But speeding up the early stages of work does not change the nature of the work. Lawyers are responsible for deciding which facts matter, which authorities control, and how legal principles apply to the client’s circumstances.

When firms treat AI output as an answer rather than an input, mistakes follow. In the matters our customers run through Mary Technology’s AI workflows, the strongest teams utilise the technology to achieve clarity faster. They still reason. They still interpret. They still decide.

AI is an accelerator. It is not an arbiter.

AI Should Help Lawyers Reach Clarity Faster

The right way to think about AI inside legal practice is simple: It shortens the path between the problem and the moment the lawyer understands it well enough to act.

Lawyers spend a significant amount of their time analysing and digesting information. AI facilitates faster, more structured, and consistent digestion. It helps lawyers:

• Progress from raw facts to organised understanding
• Reach the point where legal reasoning becomes possible.
• Narrow large volumes of material into a manageable set of relevant considerations
• Move from confusion to clarity more quickly.

But clarity only has value once a human lawyer starts applying their judgment. That moment, the moment the professional brain engages, is irreplaceable. That’s where accountability sits. That’s where legal advice takes shape.

When we observe firms adopting AI within Mary Technology’s platform, the strongest pattern is that lawyers use AI to gather information, rather than to interpret it.

They rely on the technology to surface what is there, but they use their own training to determine its meaning.

The firms that fall behind are the ones that flip this relationship. They rely on AI to interpret material and then make superficial edits, which undermines the quality of work and introduces unnecessary risk.

The aim is not to remove legal thinking. It is to get to the point where legal thinking begins.

The Risks of Using AI for Judgment-Heavy Drafting

This is the area where most of the danger lies.

AI in isolation is not suitable for drafting documents that require strategic positioning, narrative judgment, or interpretive analysis. These include:

• Legal advice
• Statements of claim
• Affidavits
• Witness statements
• Submissions
• Settlement positions
• Any document that interprets facts, applies law, or constructs an argument.

These documents depend on nuance, persuasion, inference, and professional strategy. They require a lawyer to make live judgments about what to include, what to emphasise, how to frame issues, and what approach best supports the client’s interests.

AI cannot do this work.Not safely.Not reliably.Not ethically.

And in many jurisdictions, not legally.

Lawyers Remain Fully Accountable for Every Line

No matter how much AI is used, or how early it enters a workflow, lawyers remain accountable for:

• Accuracy
• Interpretation
• Legal reasoning
• Fact characterisation
• Ethical boundaries
• Professional standards
• Duty to the court
• Duty to the client

This does not change simply because the starting point was a machine-generated draft. The document is still the lawyer’s work. Responsibility does not diminish because a tool was used in the first pass.

Every regulatory body across Australia has made this clear:

• Conduct rules cannot be delegated
• Supervision duties remain unchanged.
• Professional judgment cannot be outsourced.
• Risk management is still a human responsibility.

The risk isn’t that AI makes mistakes.The risk is that lawyers forget they are the ones who must catch them.

We advise firms daily on how to structure workflows inside Mary Technology to reinforce this accountability. The most reliable practices include:

• Requiring human review before any draft leaves the firm
• Minimising AI use for strategic drafting
• Verifying original source material that is to be relied upon

AI can help generate information.Only lawyers can take responsibility for what that information becomes.

Generative AI Products Present Information Tied to Sources, Not Opinions

This is the heart of how AI should be used inside legal work.

Good AI products, particularly those built for legal environments, are designed to:

• Present information
• Link to sources
• Preserve context
• Organise material
• Provide summaries
• Surface facts and patterns
• Support a lawyer’s reasoning.

They are not designed to automate:

• Opinions
• Interpretations
• Strategies
• Predictions
• Legal conclusions

Legal practitioners have ethical obligations to ensure they are using tools that reinforce this separation.

At Mary Technology, we have built our systems around one principle: AI should show you the material, not tell you what to think.

This boundary gives lawyers confidence that the tool is accelerating the early stages of work without disrupting the professional steps that follow. It prevents overreach and keeps decision-making where it belongs, with humans.

When lawyers rely on AI systems that generate opinionated answers, they invite risk. When they rely on tools that surface facts with links and checkpoints, they stay in control.

AI Helps Those in the Legal Profession Work Faster, but Only You Decide

AI is becoming a regular part of the legal profession. That shift brings enormous opportunity, but the opportunity is specific: faster analysis, clearer information, and a shorter path to understanding.

The responsibility-ethical, professional, strategic, interpretive-remains entirely human.

If legal teams treat AI as a judgment-free accelerator that supports only the early phases of work, they gain speed, structure, and confidence without compromising their professional identity. If they let AI shape conclusions, strategies, or narratives, the risks multiply quickly.

Use AI to:

• Gather information
• Summarise material
• Organise data
• Review large volumes
• Extract facts
• Improve consistency

Do not use AI to:

• Automate strategic documents
• Form unchecked legal conclusions
• Weigh competing positions
• Interpret facts
• Automatearguments
• Replace human oversight

The future of legal work belongs to teams that clearly understand this boundary.

If you want support building safe, structured, and transparent AI workflows inside your firm, Mary Technology is here to help.