In the evolving landscape of the legal profession, the emphasis frequently falls on technological proficiency, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI). A common aphorism you might have seen scrolling through LinkedIn — "AI won't replace lawyers. Lawyers who use AI will." — captures the prevailing sentiment. However, Dharshi Harindra, assistant general counsel for APAC at FTI Consulting, proposes a pivotal reframing: AI isn't just about the tools we use but about the judgment we exercise.

During a discussion that cut through the usual conversations about AI, Harindra emphasized, “AI is a mirror. It reflects back at us the existing judgment that we have.” This statement challenges the notion that AI primarily serves to enhance our intellectual capabilities. Instead, Harindra suggests that AI’s true utility lies in its ability to accelerate processes, highlighting that speed without sound judgment could lead to amplified errors rather than progress.

The real challenge, as Harindra points out, isn't accessing information — which machines are increasingly effective at — but rather in making wise decisions with that information. Judgment involves determining what matters, the implications of different choices, and who will bear the consequences. This aspect of legal work, she notes, is seldom captured by traditional legal training and is under-discussed in professional settings, yet it is the crux of effective legal practice.

Interestingly, the rise of AI in legal contexts might not be the disruptive force many believe it to be. Instead, it could be revealing a long-standing but under-appreciated aspect of legal expertise: the development of judgment. Legal education and practice have long focused on technical correctness and comprehensive knowledge. However, the ability to navigate complex decisions, often in ambiguous circumstances, is where seasoned lawyers demonstrate their true value.

Harindra also challenges another pervasive narrative: the necessity for lawyers to become programmers to stay relevant. Instead, she advocates for a focus on articulating and documenting the decision-making processes that experienced lawyers intuitively use. This knowledge, once made explicit, can enhance not only individual cases but also the broader systems within which legal decisions are made, including AI applications.

AI has democratized access to information, but not judgment. The nuances of risk assessment, understanding business contexts, and crafting actionable recommendations remain deeply human tasks that differentiate competent lawyers from truly exceptional ones.

As the legal industry continues to integrate AI, Harindra’s insights invite professionals to reflect not just on how they use new technologies, but on how these tools can serve to highlight and enhance the fundamental human capacity for judgment. In this light, AI doesn’t replace lawyers; it underscores the timeless value of wise judgment in law.