Digitalisation and AI: The borders of the revolution - the practice of law and litigation

Lydia Danon
Partner, CYK, London
lydia.danon@cyklaw.com

Report from the IBA Annual Litigation Forum 2025: The future of litigation

Thursday 10 April

Session Chairs

Lydia Danon Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP, London; Newsletter Editor, Litigation Committee
Andreas Frischknecht Chaffetz Lindsey, New York; Treasurer, IBA Litigation Committee

Speakers

Warren Agin Clearlaw, Boston
Rakesh Kirpalani Drew & Napier, Singapore
Sarah Malik SOL International Ltd, Abu Dhabi
Tania Sourdin University of Newcastle Law School, New South Wales

The panel discussion at the 2025 IBA Annual Litigation Forum on ‘Digitalisation and AI: The borders of the revolution – the practice of law and litigation’ was co-moderated by Lydia Danon and Andy Frischknecht and explored the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the practice of litigation. 

The session featured industry leaders and legal tech experts, including Warren Agin, Rakesh Kirpalani, Sarah Malik, and Professor Tania Sourdin, each bringing unique perspectives on AI's transformative impact across three levels: supportive, replacement, and disruptive technology.

Professor Tania Sourdin, a legal academic from the University of Newcastle, set the stage for the discussion on AI’s impact on litigation. Sourdin’s presentation, titled ‘What litigators need to know about AI: a primer’, provided essential background on the current landscape of AI in the legal profession.

Sourdin began by addressing the fundamental question of what AI actually is and how it functions within the legal domain. She highlighted the different ways AI is being used today, from automating routine tasks like document review to more sophisticated applications such as predictive analytics and legal research. She pointed out that AI, in its current form, is largely focused on augmenting human capabilities rather than replacing them. For instance, AI tools can assist lawyers in organising and analysing vast amounts of data, but the decision-making process remains firmly in the hands of legal professionals.

Sourdin also touched on the broader implications of AI for the legal profession. She raised key questions about the future of law, particularly the role of junior lawyers. With AI increasingly able to handle repetitive tasks such as contract review and basic legal research, Sourdin noted that there could be a significant reduction in the demand for junior lawyers in the coming years. This could change how law firms structure their teams, with senior lawyers needing to adapt to a more tech-driven environment. While she acknowledged the potential for AI to free up lawyers from mundane tasks, she also cautioned against over-relying on technology at the expense of legal judgment and human expertise.

Following Sourdin’s excellent introduction, the panel moved on to what can only be described as a very lively and engaging debate about the current state of AI in litigation, including its capabilities and limitations.

Warren Agin, Senior Director of Contract Intelligence at Clearlaw, emphasised that AI's capabilities extend beyond basic automation to handling complex tasks like synthesising and summarising large data sets, which can significantly streamline the litigation process. However, he also cautioned that while AI is powerful, it is not without limitations, particularly when it comes to handling nuanced legal contexts. The challenge for litigators, he pointed out, lies in identifying the appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI, particularly in the early stages of litigation when understanding the full scope of a case is critical.

Sarah Malik, a legal expert from Sol International, delved into the practical implications of AI for litigators, particularly its ability to handle vast amounts of data and its potential to revolutionise the process from case initiation to trial. Malik highlighted that AI’s ability to synthesise and summarise information is already a game-changer in litigation. By leveraging AI, lawyers can quickly gain a comprehensive understanding of complex cases, enhancing their strategic decision-making. She also discussed the growing concern of AI-generated forgeries, emphasising the need for caution in handling AI-generated evidence, which can complicate authentication processes in the courtroom.

The discussion turned to Rakesh Kirpalani, who focused on the governance aspects of AI in litigation. As the Chief Technology Officer at Drew & Napier, Kirpalani brought a cybersecurity and risk management perspective, emphasising the importance of maintaining confidentiality and ensuring data security in an age where AI systems process sensitive information. He noted that the integration of AI into law firms' workflows is no longer a luxury but increasingly a necessity. The competitive advantage of being an early adopter of AI was debated, with Kirpalani pointing out that while AI is still seen by some clients as a ‘nice to have’, its integration into legal practices could soon become a critical factor in client selection, as firms that fail to embrace AI may fall behind.

The panel discussion provided a robust exchange of ideas about the balance between AI’s capabilities and its ethical and practical challenges. A key issue raised was the future of legal research and drafting, with some panellists questioning whether AI could ever reliably replace the nuanced judgment that human lawyers bring to legal analysis and advocacy. Others argued that AI could enhance, rather than replace, the work of lawyers, particularly in the context of routine research and drafting tasks.

One of the most engaging aspects of the session was the debate around the future of the legal profession. There was a recognition that AI would undoubtedly change the way lawyers work, but also a recognition that human expertise in areas such as strategic decision-making, client relationships, and complex legal interpretation would remain crucial. The panellists agreed that the key to successfully integrating AI into legal practices would be to strike a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities and preserving the core human elements that define the legal profession.

The session concluded with a discussion on what the future holds for AI in litigation. The panellists expressed excitement about the potential of AI to revolutionise the field, but also acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. They agreed that while AI is already transforming legal practice in significant ways, the next wave of disruptive technologies will likely push the boundaries even further. The question of what comes next and how the legal profession will adapt remains open, but the consensus was that those who embrace AI’s potential now will be better positioned to navigate the future.

The debate underscored the need for legal professionals to stay informed about AI developments and adapt their practices accordingly, while also safeguarding the integrity of the legal process. The session highlighted that, while AI is not a panacea, its role in shaping the future of litigation is undeniable.