They confirmed that artificial intelligence cannot predict the course of cases or determine their outcomes.

Legal Experts Settle the Debate: Do Not Hand Over Your Cases to the 'Robot Lawyer'.. The Risks Are Severe

July 23, 2026 - 00:44 | Last updated July 23, 2026 - 00:51

--:--

Follow Okaz channel on WhatsApp

Badriah Al-Omar @bdoo_202, Maryam Al-Saghir @Maryam9902

Lawyers and legal consultants confirmed to "Okaz" that artificial intelligence has contributed to speeding up legal work procedures, enhancing the efficiency of research and analysis, and preparing initial drafts. However, it cannot replace the lawyer's expertise and professional diligence, nor can it take on the essential tasks related to evaluating evidence, legal qualification, and drafting defenses.

They warned against relying entirely on the outputs of artificial intelligence tools, due to the inaccurate information, repealed regulatory texts, and incorrect rulings they may contain, alongside the risks of violating client confidentiality and weak data protection, emphasizing that professional and legal responsibility remains entirely upon the lawyer.

Lawyer and legal consultant Saad Ali Al-Husseini Al-Shahrani explained that legal work is witnessing an increasing presence of artificial intelligence tools, which assist lawyers in analyzing facts, sorting documents, accelerating research processes, and preparing initial drafts of memos, thereby helping to save time and raise performance efficiency.

He stated that these tools must remain supporting means for the lawyer, not a substitute, and all their outputs must be subject to careful human review before adoption, as they may rely on incorrect or outdated texts or rulings, and may fail to accurately comprehend the judicial context and dispute circumstances.

Al-Shahrani added that artificial intelligence can be utilized to conduct an initial assessment of the strength of a lawsuit and monitor its potential paths, but predicting case outcomes remains probabilistic, given that the final ruling is linked to the evidence submitted by the litigants, mutual defenses, each party's ability to refute the other's arguments, in addition to the court's discretionary power and the differing circumstances and details of each case.

He pointed out that the most prominent challenges associated with using these tools are the potential violation of client confidentiality, weak data protection, and output bias depending on the nature of the data upon which the technical models were trained.

He emphasized that excessive reliance on artificial intelligence may weaken the lawyer's ability to conduct independent legal analysis, while their professional responsibility remains fully intact for every memo or consultation submitted under their name, pointing out that optimal use of this technology lies in employing it to enhance efficiency and work quality without replacing legal expertise.

For her part, lawyer Abeer Daghriri explained that artificial intelligence technologies represent supportive tools for a lawyer's work and can be utilized to gather information, organize ideas, and facilitate access to relevant regulations, yet they cannot constitute a primary pillar to be relied upon entirely in practicing the profession.

She stated that every case has its own circumstances and documents, and while artificial intelligence may help in analyzing data and foreseeing the course of a case based on available documents, the final decision remains tied to the lawyer's diligence and the court's discretion.

In turn, lawyer Abdullah bin Mohammed Al-Kasib affirmed that artificial intelligence has contributed to speeding up legal work and raising its efficiency, but it has not changed the essence of the legal profession, as its role is limited to supporting the lawyer in legal research, gathering information, analyzing facts, organizing ideas, and saving time and effort.

He explained that understanding the case, evaluating evidence, correctly qualifying facts legally, drafting defenses, and managing arguments before the judiciary are all tasks tied to the lawyer's expertise and professional diligence, which artificial intelligence cannot perform independently.

Al-Kasib pointed out that artificial intelligence cannot determine the strength of a case or accurately predict its outcomes, because resolving disputes is subject to multiple factors, most notably the court's assessment of evidence, any documents or defenses that may arise during the course of the lawsuit, in addition to the lawyer's skill in presenting facts, building legal arguments, and drafting influential defenses—elements that cannot be reduced to algorithms or technical models.

He indicated that among the most prominent risks of relying on artificial intelligence in preparing memos and legal consultations is the possibility of relying on inaccurate information, repealed regulations, or non-existent provisions, in addition to poor legal qualification of facts due to the technology's inability to comprehend all circumstances of the case and link them to the correct legal qualification.

For his part, lawyer and legal consultant Ahmed bin Jumaan Al-Malki affirmed that artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic technology, but has become a tangible reality in various fields of life, and its presence is no longer limited to the legal field, but extends to more complex fields such as car manufacturing and advanced surgical operations.

He explained that the optimal use of artificial intelligence in law is to employ it as an auxiliary tool in legal research, initial editing, monitoring judicial rulings, regulations, and bylaws, and analyzing them, without its role extending to fundamental legal thinking, primary drafting of memos and contracts, or preparing legal opinions.

Al-Malki added that these tasks must remain tied to human thought and the lawyer's expertise, considering that legal work is fundamentally based on the interaction between the lawyer, the client, and the facts of the dispute, which no technology can replace.

He pointed out that artificial intelligence tools may contribute to evaluating the strength of a case, foreseeing its path, and highlighting certain indicators that benefit the lawyer, but these indicators must be treated as guiding means only and must not replace independent legal analysis or professional expertise.

He emphasized that the court's authority in assessing facts and evidence and applying regulations will remain in place, and any predictions provided by artificial intelligence tools cannot rise to the level of certainty or replace the judiciary's discretionary power.

Al-Malki warned against relying entirely on artificial intelligence in drafting memos, contracts, and providing written consultations, stressing that this may turn technology from an auxiliary tool into a substitute for the lawyer's intellectual work, undermining their analysis and diligence capabilities, and potentially leading to severe professional errors for which the lawyer bears responsibility.

Lawyers and legal consultants confirmed to "Okaz" that artificial intelligence has contributed to speeding up legal work procedures, enhancing the efficiency of research and analysis, and preparing initial drafts. However, it cannot replace the lawyer's expertise and professional diligence, nor can it take on the essential tasks related to evaluating evidence, legal classification, and drafting defenses.