AI is coming for legal work. South Africa should see that as an opportunity

The legal profession appears caught between these two camps.

Around the world, law firms are experimenting with AI-powered tools capable of drafting contracts, reviewing documents, summarising legal authorities and conducting research in seconds. The technology has advanced at a pace few anticipated. Tasks that once occupied by junior associates for hours can now be completed almost instantly.

For many lawyers, the instinctive response has been concerning. If machines can perform routine legal work, what happens to the profession?

In South Africa, however, that may be the wrong question. The more important question is whether AI can help address some of the structural challenges that have long constrained the country’s legal system. South Africa faces persistent barriers to access to justice. Legal services remain prohibitively expensive for many households and small businesses. Court backlogs continue to frustrate litigants. Public institutions operate under significant resource constraints.

Against this backdrop, efficiency should not be viewed as a threat. It should be viewed as an opportunity.

For decades, legal services have relied on labour-intensive processes. Research, document review, due diligence and contract analysis have traditionally required substantial human effort.

AI has the potential to reduce the cost and time associated with many of these activities. If deployed responsibly, that could improve access to legal services and enable lawyers to focus on higher-value advisory work.

The impact is likely to be particularly significant for corporate legal departments. South African businesses are under constant pressure to manage regulatory complexity while controlling costs.

AI tools can assist with compliance monitoring, contract management and risk assessment, enabling legal teams to operate more efficiently without necessarily increasing headcount.

The same logic applies to law firms.

For generations, the economics of legal practice have been built around billable hours. Yet clients increasingly demand value rather than time. As AI reduces the hours required for routine tasks, firms will be forced to rethink how legal services are priced and delivered. This transition may be uncomfortable, but it is unlikely to be avoided.

History suggests that technological change rarely eliminates professional expertise. Instead, it alters where that expertise creates value. Electronic legal databases did not replace lawyers. Online research platforms did not replace lawyers. AI is unlikely to replace lawyers either. What it will do is reduce the premium attached to routine information processing while increasing the value of judgment, strategy and specialised expertise. That distinction matters.

The practice of law is not simply about locating information. It is about interpreting facts, assessing risks, balancing competing interests and exercising professional judgment. These remain fundamentally human functions.

At the same time, it would be naïve to ignore the risks.

Generative AI systems are known to produce inaccurate information with remarkable confidence. Internationally, several lawyers have faced professional embarrassment after relying on AI-generated legal authorities that did not exist. Technology’s tendency to fabricate information presents obvious dangers in a profession where accuracy is non-negotiable.

South Africa faces an additional challenge. Much of the world’s AI infrastructure has been developed and trained in jurisdictions with legal traditions, regulatory frameworks and societal contexts that differ significantly from our own. A system that performs effectively in New York or London may not be equally reliable when interpreting South African constitutional jurisprudence, labour law, competition regulation or sector-specific compliance obligations. This underscores the need for careful governance.

The legal profession cannot afford either complacency or panic. Instead, regulators, law firms and corporate legal departments should focus on developing practical standards for AI use.

Questions of accountability, transparency, confidentiality and professional responsibility require clear answers.

The Protection of Personal Information Act already imposes significant obligations on organisations handling sensitive data. Those obligations do not disappear when AI enters the workflow. If anything, they become more important. Lawyers and clients alike need confidence that confidential information remains protected and that legal advice remains subject to meaningful human oversight.

South Africa also has an opportunity to position itself strategically within the broader global debate on AI governance. Policymakers frequently speak about the need for economic growth, digital transformation and improved competitiveness. The legal sector offers a practical environment in which to demonstrate how innovation and regulation can coexist.

The objective should not be to prevent technological change. Nor should it be to adopt new technologies without adequate safeguards. The challenge is to strike a balance between innovation and accountability.

The countries that succeeded in the AI era will not necessarily be those with the most advanced technology. They will be those that adapt their institutions, regulatory frameworks and skills base most effectively.

That lesson applies equally to the legal profession.

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly change how legal services are delivered. Some jobs will evolve. Certain tasks will become automated. Business models will be challenged.

But the future of law will not be determined by technology alone. It will be determined by how effectively lawyers, regulators and institutions respond to it. South Africa should approach that future with neither fear nor complacency.

It should approach it with purpose.