Lawyers play a crucial role as advisors to clients, which is recognized in the codes of ethics of various jurisdictions, providing context for legal advice. The UNGP’s and CSDDD are two examples of standards (one soft, one hard law) whereby companies are obligated to understand, monitor and mitigate their adverse human rights and environmental impacts. With the advent of artificial intelligence, new challenges and opportunities arise, implicating lawyers' ethical obligations. AI presents a double-edged sword in the realm of environmental protection and human rights. For example, AI-powered satellite imagery analysis has improved the detection of deforestation in the Amazon, allowing authorities to respond more swiftly to illegal logging activities. At the same time, facial recognition software and zero-click forms of spyware represent a threat to privacy rights that may impact ongoing activities of environmental defenders. Issues relating to bias in AI applications can also impact on the legal advice given that relies in part on AI. Sustainability issues are also raised in considering the computing power required to build and run AI systems demands significant energy and water resources, potentially exacerbating environmental stress in already vulnerable areas.

As advisors, lawyers must navigate these complex intersections, balancing the potential benefits of AI with ethical considerations that may require considerations of risks to human rights and the environment. There is a growing school of thought that lawyer should consider not only the legal implications but also the broader ethical and societal impacts of AI implementation in their clients' operations. This expanded role requires lawyers to be well-versed in both the technological aspects of AI and its ethical implications potential for human rights and environmental sustainability. This view is not without its opponents who argue for a stricter and more literal interpretation of the scope of legal advice. This discussion focuses on this flexion point.