Human Intelligence With AI, Not Against It, With Peter Wright
The legal sector has spent years asking whether artificial intelligence will replace lawyers. It is an eye-catching question, but not necessarily the most useful one.
For most firms, the more immediate challenge is deciding how to use AI responsibly, strategically and transparently without weakening the standards clients expect.
In the opening episode of our Q3 series exploring Artificial Intelligence versus Human Intelligence, Laura Hearn, Content and Brand Manager at Consortium, speaks with Peter Wright, Managing Director of Digital Law.
Their conversation explores what responsible AI adoption really looks like, from client transparency and professional negligence to access to justice, governance and the future talent pipeline.
Are law firms still caught in the AI hype cycle?
Some firms have moved quickly to announce that they are using AI.That does not always mean they have thought carefully about why they are using it, where it adds value or how it should be governed.
Peter argues that law firms have historically been slower than other sectors to adopt technology. Partnership structures, competing priorities and a continued focus on chargeable time can make it difficult to step back and think strategically.
There is also a fear of being left behind. That pushes firms into buying systems because they look innovative, not because they solve a clearly defined problem.
The starting point should be simpler. What problem are we trying to solve? How will this improve the client experience? What new risks does it bring? And who owns it once it is live?
Without clear answers to those, AI adoption becomes expensive theatre rather than real business change.
Human intelligence, augmented with AI
Peter rejects the idea that AI and human intelligence are natural opponents.His preferred description is human intelligence augmented by AI.
Technology can take on time-consuming and repetitive tasks, helping lawyers process information, organise evidence and produce early drafts more efficiently.
That should create more time for the work clients genuinely value, including negotiation, advocacy, explanation and commercial judgement.
A technically correct answer may still be dense, poorly expressed or unsuitable for the person receiving it. Lawyers add value by turning complexity into advice that is relevant, understandable and actionable.
AI gets you to the starting point, however, it cannot tell you where to go next.
Should clients be told when AI is being used?
One of the biggest questions in the episode is about transparency.
Say a client thinks several hours of professional work has gone into their advice. In reality, much of it came together quickly through an AI tool. Should they be told? Peter’s answer is yes.
Clients should know what tools might be used, how those tools support the work, and who is checking the output. That matters most where firms are still billing by the hour. If the technology cuts the time a task takes, it gets harder to justify a fee built purely on time spent.
Transparency runs the other way too. Clients need guidance on their own use of public AI platforms when they are talking to their lawyers. Typing confidential instructions or documents into a free tool can put privacy, confidentiality and legal professional privilege at real risk.
So AI is becoming part of the client care conversation. It is not something that can sit quietly inside internal processes any more.
Can AI improve access to justice?
The discussion also looks at where AI is already filling genuine gaps in the legal market.
Peter refers to AI-led services designed to support people with lower-value small claims, an area where obtaining traditional legal representation is often uneconomic.
For someone pursuing a claim worth several thousand pounds, paying a solicitor a similar amount may make little commercial sense. Over time, many firms have withdrawn from this type of work.
AI creates the possibility of delivering useful support at a much lower cost.This does not mean every legal problem can or should be automated. More complex matters still require experienced advice, judgement and representation.
But where the alternative is no support at all, carefully designed technology may make legal services more accessible.
When does reliance on AI become negligent?
AI hallucinations and invented authorities have already caused serious problems within legal proceedings. Peter’s concern is that these incidents reveal something deeper than a technology failure, and they expose weaknesses in supervision.
An AI-generated document should be treated with the same caution as work produced by an inexperienced member of the team. It must be checked carefully by someone capable of identifying inaccuracies, inconsistencies and poor reasoning.
The responsibility does not disappear because software was involved.
When a solicitor or partner approves a document, they are standing behind its quality. The client, court and regulator are entitled to expect that the work has been properly reviewed.
The real danger comes when firms become overconfident, reduce scrutiny or assume that a polished output must be reliable.
AI governance must be more than a policy
For law firm leaders, responsible AI use requires more than downloading a standard policy and placing it in a compliance folder.
Peter describes AI governance as an ongoing operational responsibility, not a one-off policy exercise.
It should set clear rules around:
- how AI tools are selected, assessed and approved;
- what information staff can and cannot enter into them;
- how AI-generated outputs must be checked before use;
- who remains accountable for decisions and final work; and
- how staff are trained to use AI safely and effectively.
The aim is to make sure AI is used consistently, responsibly and with proper human oversight across the organisation.
A policy matters, but only if it changes behaviour. Governance must be built into procurement, supervision, compliance meetings and regular reviews.
Without that framework, firms risk investing heavily in technology they later have to suspend because the proper safeguards were never put in place.
Productivity should not come at the cost of succession
AI may allow firms to complete more work with greater efficiency. That does not mean sharply reducing the number of trainees, apprentices or junior lawyers they recruit.
Peter warns this creates a serious succession problem. Junior lawyers may do different work in future, but firms will still need people developing the skills to supervise technology, advise clients, negotiate and lead practices.
The opportunity is to rethink training rather than abandon it. Future lawyers will need to understand both the law and the technology supporting it, alongside the communication, judgement and interpersonal skills that AI cannot reliably reproduce.
The enduring value of language
When asked what he hopes technology will never replace, Peter chooses language. Legal practice depends on the ability to explain, persuade, reassure and connect.
AI can generate text quickly. What it cannot consistently reproduce is the sensitivity involved in choosing the right language for a particular person, audience or moment.
As automated content becomes more common, skilled human communication may become more valuable.
Five practical takeaways
- Begin with a clear business and client need, not a fear of being left behind.
- Be open with clients about how AI supports their work, and what human review sits behind it.
- Give clients guidance on using public AI platforms for confidential communications, where privilege is at risk.
- Supervise AI output properly. Professional responsibility stays with the firm.
- Build governance into procurement, training, risk management and day-to-day decisions.
Get those right, and the upside is real: better productivity, wider access to legal support, and lawyers spending their time on judgement, advocacy and communication.
You can listen to the full episode on our website, YouTube, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.