The Underestimated Risk
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but the impact differs starkly between generations. While seasoned lawyers leverage AI to augment their capabilities, many early-career Australian lawyers risk professional failure through uncritical dependence on AI-generated content. The core issue isn’t technological adoption—it’s quality control. The ability to assess the accuracy, appropriateness, and legal sufficiency of AI outputs requires legal expertise and judgement that many junior lawyers are yet to develop.
The Competence Illusion
Australian law graduates are typically tech-savvy and adapt quickly to tools like ChatGPT, Claude, or CoPilot. However, ease of use creates a dangerous illusion: that technological fluency equates to legal competence. Cases in Australia and abroad demonstrate that junior lawyers often submit AI-generated documents without verifying the sources or legal soundness, exposing clients and themselves to risk.
In litigation, this can lead to immediate professional consequences. In the United States, courts have sanctioned lawyers for citing non-existent cases generated by AI. In Australia, where the legal profession is regulated under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria), conduct amounting to professional incompetence or misconduct can lead to disciplinary action or even suspension.
AI and Transactional Law: The Hidden Time Bomb
Much of the concern around AI focuses on litigation errors, but the greater risk lies in transactional practice. AI-drafted contracts, wills, or leases often appear legally sound but are riddled with oversights—missing crucial clauses, misinterpreting local laws, or failing to align with client objectives. Unlike litigation, these problems may not surface until years later, by which time damage—financial or reputational—may be irreparable.
In estate planning, for instance, AI-generated wills may fail to meet jurisdiction-specific requirements under Victorian law, such as witnessing or testamentary capacity, potentially invalidating the document. In commercial real estate, AI may overlook local council requirements or obligations under the Retail Leases Act, breaching fiduciary duties owed to clients.
The Erosion of Legal Training
AI is also undermining the traditional learning path for junior lawyers. Tasks such as drafting, reviewing contracts, or legal research used to teach attention to detail and legal analysis. Now, these are often outsourced to AI, leaving junior lawyers with limited understanding of the legal frameworks underpinning their work.
As highlighted in the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules, a core requirement for admission to practice in Victoria includes demonstrating an understanding of legal reasoning and the capacity to apply it to practical problems. Without developing these skills, young lawyers risk stagnation in their careers.
Professional Standards and Liability
The Legal Profession Uniform Law imposes obligations of competence, diligence, and integrity on all Australian legal practitioners. Submitting unverified AI outputs may breach these duties. Furthermore, if a lawyer presents AI-generated work as their own and it is materially incorrect, they could face disciplinary proceedings for unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. Or, even worse, the matter becomes the subject of a professional negligence claim,
Additionally, under Chapter 5 of the Uniform Law, clients may lodge complaints relating to poor service or misconduct. A growing number of complaints involve allegations that lawyers relied on flawed AI outputs, especially in consumer law, family law, and property transactions.
Experienced Lawyers Are Thriving
Conversely, experienced lawyers in Victoria are embracing AI responsibly. They utilise legal-specific AI tools embedded with compliance and verification checks—tools often unavailable in consumer-grade platforms. Importantly, they apply their legal judgement to validate outputs, ensuring quality control remains paramount.
Firms are also deploying internal policies to regulate AI use. These include mandatory verification protocols, limitations on permissible AI tools, and ongoing training aligned with the Continuing Professional Development Rules.
The Regulatory and Supervisory Gap
A pressing challenge is the supervision of junior lawyers using AI. Under Rule 5.1 of the Uniform Conduct Rules, supervising lawyers are responsible for ensuring compliance by those under their direction. However, the use of AI is often invisible—supervisors may not realise an AI tool was used unless they interrogate the content.
This issue is exacerbated by remote work arrangements, which reduce incidental oversight. Some firms are addressing this with structured supervision frameworks and AI use disclosure protocols, but adoption remains inconsistent.
The Path Forward
For Junior Lawyers:
- Prioritise Legal Judgement Over Speed: Use AI for efficiency, not as a crutch. Always review and verify outputs.
- Use Legal-Specific AI Tools: Prefer platforms vetted for legal accuracy and compliance.
- Build Legal Foundations: Resist the temptation to automate everything. The development of professional judgement is non-negotiable.
- Engage in CPD: Focus on AI literacy and quality control through Continuing Professional Development programs.
- Seek Supervision: Proactively seek feedback and validation from experienced practitioners.
For Law Firms:
- Implement AI Policies: Regulate tool selection, mandate output verification, and establish accountability procedures.
- Facilitate Mentoring: Encourage collaboration between tech-savvy juniors and experienced lawyers to bridge the AI-proficiency and judgement gap.
- Ensure Compliance: Review AI practices against professional standards under the Uniform Law and Uniform Rules.
Conclusion: Quality Control is Non-Negotiable
The future of the legal profession lies not in avoiding AI, but in mastering it responsibly. For junior lawyers in Victoria, unchecked reliance on generative AI poses not only a risk to their careers but to the integrity of the profession itself. The key is not whether to use AI—but how. Those who learn to combine technological efficiency with legal rigour will lead the profession into the future. Those who don’t may find themselves outpaced—or out of practice. credit manus.ai for research and chatgpt RAG for refinement