Mind Over Machine: Preserving Human Judgment in Legal Writing
As the legal profession rushes to adopt artificial intelligence, it's essential to pause and consider a fundamental distinction: the difference between tools that enhance our thinking and those that might inadvertently replace it.
Legal writing transcends mere text production; it's fundamentally about the intellectual journey of argument construction, weighing considerations, and developing reasoned positions.
Consider the implications when lawyers delegate the drafting of a legal argument to tools like ChatGPT. While the output may boast grammatical perfection and logical coherence, the AI often shapes the reasoning's structure, emphasis, and flow at the expense of the lawyer's tailored, case-specific analysis.
Conversely, tools like Apple Intelligence's writing tools function as intelligent assistants, focusing on refining human-generated content. They enhance precision, tone, and clarity without dictating the argument's substance.
Drawing parallels with digital note-taking devices, like the reMarkable or Skribe, illustrates another point. Some legal professionals prefer these minimalist tools because they offer just enough technology to aid writing without the distractions that can disrupt deep thought.
This 'less is more' approach could be particularly apt in legal practice, advocating for tools that respect and amplify the lawyer's role as the chief architect of legal arguments.
Moreover, Apple's approach offers practical benefits: local, encrypted processing ensures that sensitive legal documents remain confidential, safeguarding client trust and data security.
Yet the relationship between efficiency and depth deserves careful consideration. While maintaining human oversight is crucial, AI can significantly accelerate routine tasks and preliminary drafts, potentially allowing lawyers to dedicate more time to complex, nuanced work. The challenge lies not in choosing between human judgment and AI assistance, but in striking the right balance for different types of legal work.
This balance might look different across various legal contexts and individual practices. Apple Intelligence's flexibility to operate with or without ChatGPT integration reflects this need for customization. Some lawyers might prefer the minimalist approach for critical analytical work while embracing fuller AI integration for routine documents – a choice that should align with both the task at hand and the practitioner's workflow.
As AI technology rapidly evolves, we must also consider how future iterations might better complement legal reasoning rather than attempting to replace it. The goal should be finding ways for AI to augment human judgment while preserving the essential human elements of legal analysis.
Critical to this evolution is the development of proper training frameworks. Legal professionals need more than just access to AI tools – they need comprehensive guidance on leveraging these technologies effectively while maintaining control over their work's substantive aspects. This includes understanding both the capabilities and limitations of different AI approaches, and developing strategies for maintaining human direction in the writing process.
As the legal sector navigates the integration of AI, thoughtful tool selection is paramount. The objective isn't to eschew powerful AI tools but to critically assess how they might affect the quality of legal reasoning and writing. While some might advocate for comprehensive AI assistance, others might find value in tools that enhance, rather than replace, human judgment. The flexibility of systems like Apple Intelligence, which can integrate with or without advanced AI like ChatGPT, reflects this nuanced need.
Subscribe to my Substack newsletter today so you don’t miss out on a post. https://judgeschlegel.substack.com
