Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant idea in India’s legal ecosystem, it is already beginning to reshape both how law is taught and how it is practiced. In classrooms, AI tools are influencing research, writing, and learning methods, while in professional spaces, they are being used for legal research, drafting, case management, and even judicial assistance. This dual transformation across legal education and legal practice signals a deeper structural shift, one that brings with it not just efficiency gains but also important questions around accountability, fairness, and institutional readiness.
This policy brief was developed as part of JustAI Edutech LLP’s contribution to the IndiaAI Pre-Summit event, organised in collaboration with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University (DBRANLU), Sonipat, and GALTER. The panel discussion, centered on the theme “Impact of AI on India’s Legal Ecosystem,” brought together diverse perspectives on how AI is influencing the legal field. It was during this discussion that the policy brief was formally unveiled.
The study has been designed in two parts to capture this transformation more comprehensively. The first part examines the impact of AI on legal education, while this second part focuses on its impact on legal practice and the judiciary. Together, they aim to provide a more complete picture of how AI is reshaping the legal ecosystem in India, while also identifying the key challenges that must be addressed as this transition continues.
The second part of our policy brief examines the impact of AI on the legal profession and judiciary. When we started working on this policy brief, one thing became immediately clear: artificial intelligence is no longer something the legal profession in India can afford to debate from a distance. The impact is visible, whether it is positive or negative and it is no longer a question of If AI will impact the legal profession, the question is how quickly and how deeply?
Therefore, to assess the impact, to know exactly how the people that belongs to the legal cliché in India are adopting AI, interacting with it and how they perceive it, we conducted a survey (the survey is briefly present in the Policy brief since it was carried on for a bigger research purpose). The survey was conducted using Google forms spread through email and whatsapp conversation groups of JustAI COMMUNITY. A total of 279 stakeholders responded to the survey which is then analysed and presented here.
Exposure and Utilisation of AI in the Legal Profession
The findings of the policy brief indicate that artificial intelligence is no longer at a nascent stage within India’s legal profession; rather, it is already embedded within everyday legal workflows. Survey data shows that 75.2% of stakeholders have used AI-based tools, reflecting a high level of exposure across the legal ecosystem.
However, this widespread adoption is not uniform across all functions. AI is most prominently used in legal research (74.5%), followed by drafting and contract-related tasks, where its ability to process large volumes of information and identify patterns offers clear efficiency gains. At the same time, its use remains comparatively limited in areas such as predictive analytics, compliance, and decision-making, where the stakes are higher and the need for contextual reasoning is more pronounced.
Despite this high level of utilisation, the data reveals a significant gap between use and understanding. Only 34% of respondents report high familiarity with AI systems, while a substantial proportion indicate moderate or limited understanding. This suggests that AI tools are often being used instrumentally valued for their outputs rather than understood in terms of their functioning or limitations.
Further, the patterns of adoption indicate a cautious approach within the legal community. AI is primarily being deployed in assistive roles, augmenting human decision-making rather than replacing it.
Ethical and Legal Issues in the Use of AI in the Legal Profession
Alongside increasing adoption, the policy brief identifies a range of ethical and legal concerns emerging from both the survey findings and existing theoretical literature. These concerns are not merely technical limitations, but go to the heart of how law functions as a system grounded in fairness, accountability, and due process.
One of the most significant concerns relates to data privacy and confidentiality, with 61% of respondents identifying it as their primary issue. Given that legal work involves highly sensitive information, the use of AI systems particularly those that rely on external data processing raises serious questions about control, consent, and the protection of privileged communication.
Closely linked to this is the issue of data security (56.6%), along with broader concerns around lack of awareness (53.7%) and legal and ethical uncertainty (50.8%). The problem of accuracy and reliability is also a central concern. A substantial 71% of respondents report encountering incorrect or hallucinated AI-generated outputs, highlighting the limitations of current AI systems in handling complex legal reasoning. Another critical issue is the lack of transparency and explainability, with 41% of respondents expressing concern. Often described as the “black box” problem, this lack of clarity regarding how AI systems arrive at specific outputs challenges foundational legal principles, particularly the ability to justify, contest, and review decisions.
Concerns around algorithmic bias and discrimination are also significant, with approximately 40% of respondents identifying it as a key issue. From a theoretical perspective, this reflects longstanding critiques within AI ethics literature regarding the ways in which data-driven systems may reproduce or amplify existing social inequalities. Lastly, the brief highlights the potential impact of AI on due process and adversarial justice, particularly where AI tools begin to influence decision-making processes. The survey findings reinforce this concern, with a majority of respondents expressing opposition to the use of AI in judicial decision-making.
Taken together, these findings indicate that while AI offers clear functional benefits, its integration into the legal profession raises complex ethical and legal challenges that cannot be addressed through technological solutions alone. Instead, they require a combination of regulatory clarity, professional standards, and institutional safeguards to ensure that the adoption of AI remains aligned with the foundational principles of the legal system. International Guidelines and principles, along with jurisdictional attempts made by the counterparts of India are then assessed to provide a policy recommendation for India that is rooted in India’s present ‘balanced’ approach.
The part 2 of the policy can be accessed here.