Reasoning outsourced: the limits of artificial intelligence in the law
Welcome to the era of reasoning outsourced to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Outsourcing reasoning to AI is just a change of technique. It leaves the lawyer’s obligations exactly where they were, and it makes those obligations easier to breach. The claim that AI will replace lawyers is half right. It will dismantle the junior law associate as a unit of cheap, typed drafting output, which is how…
In the age of AI-driven reasoning, legal professionals must reckon with the limits of artificial intelligence in the law. Although AI may replace junior associates as a source of cheap drafting output, seasoned lawyers remain essential, as there is no mechanism to hold machines accountable. The profession's core duties, which include maintaining the authenticity of precedents, are written into the legal system's structure and hinge on the accountability of human signatories.
Under Pakistani law, legal proceedings are governed by various statutes and rules, such as Article 189 and Article 201 of the Constitution, which ensure the binding nature of judicial decisions. The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act of 1973 and associated rules provide disciplinary jurisdiction for professional misconduct, while Section 35-A empowers courts to award compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims and defences. These provisions, however, do not carve out exceptions for software-generated content.
The use of generative tools may result in negligent filing of hallucinated citations due to oversight, but it is not necessarily perjury. However, deliberate choice to rely on AI-generated content without verification could lead to reckless misrepresentation before the court, exposing the lawyer to contempt under Article 204. The Pakistani legal system's fragmented law reporting further exacerbates this issue, as AI models can fabricate case citations in various formats without any factual basis.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed AI's role in judicial decision-making in Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed, decided on March 13, 2025. The judgment emphasized that AI should only serve as an auxiliary resource, with identifiable humans maintaining ultimate responsibility. The court recommended the development of national guidelines for AI usage, which have since been approved by the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee.
These guidelines outline human oversight requirements, including explicit identification of AI-generated content and verification procedures. While not directly binding on advocates or Bar Councils, these guidelines provide a solid foundation for future legal standards and demonstrate the judicial direction toward responsible AI integration in the Pakistani legal system.
Written by urgent.news from Business Recorder's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
