We’re in what historians call an “interregnum”: the old order hasn’t disappeared, but a new one is unmistakably on its way. Some describe this as gradual evolution, but that misses the scale of what’s changing. This isn’t just another practice management tool; it’s a fundamental reconfiguration of how legal work gets done.
Twelve months ago, a complex, time-critical transaction taking place over the summer break would have meant recalling members of my team from holidays. This summer, equipped with advanced (and secure!) AI tools, I was able to manage the same level of workload, and time pressures, using just the AI tools at my disposal – an eye-opening moment. And I am not alone with this revelation. Across the profession, with the help of AI, lawyers are reviewing materials, drafting complex provisions, developing negotiation strategies, and managing demanding matters in ways that simply weren’t possible before. That shift, from theory to lived reality, marks where New Zealand’s legal profession now stands.
The efficiency gains are extraordinary. What once took days can now take hours; what took hours can take minutes. A sole practitioner handling property transactions, a family lawyer drafting affidavits, and a partner in a large commercial firm analysing documents will each experience AI differently, but all will experience it.
The real advantage isn’t just speed, it’s capacity. Lawyers can potentially handle more matters without proportionately scaling headcount, take on matters that were previously uneconomic, and deliver detailed analysis to clients who perhaps couldn’t previously afford it. For community law centres, AI could democratise capabilities previously available only to well-resourced firms.
This creates genuine competitive advantage and the potential for greater equity in legal outcomes. Increasingly, clients assume their lawyers have access to these efficiencies. Firms and practitioners that master AI can take on more work, serve clients better, and operate more profitably. The business model implications are significant.
Yet the transformation isn’t straightforward, and the benefits come with significant challenges that the profession must address collectively.
First is the inequality between practitioners. Some have invested heavily in AI capability, others are experimenting cautiously and many are still evaluating their options. This raises genuine access to justice questions. If AI capabilities become standard client expectations but require significant capital investment, some practitioners may find the levels of investment a bridge too far and struggle to compete. Professional bodies and technology providers may need to consider how to achieve economies of scale that would allow viable and equitable access to these tools, particularly to smaller firms or sole practitioners.
Second is product selection. The market is crowded, claims are ambitious, and distinguishing genuine AI capability from marketing hype is difficult. “Analysis paralysis” is a genuine risk, particularly when marketing claims outpace demonstrated capability.
A third consideration is how AI may influence how legal work is structured. As routine tasks become more efficient, the mix of where lawyers spend their time may shift and the billable hour model will face fundamental challenges. That’s uncomfortable, but AI won’t eliminate this pressure immediately, and practitioners have time to adapt if they start now, ensuring pricing continues to reflect the value and expertise clients rely on.
It is important to note of course that legal practice extends way beyond mechanical drafting. In high stakes matters (whether commercial transactions, litigation strategy, or family disputes), clients value architecture and judgement: How should risk be allocated? What governance model will work in practice? How should concessions be sequenced? These questions involve contextual judgement, commercial trade-offs, and accountability. AI can assist with preparation, but it cannot replace experienced leadership or the ability to read a room.
Professional obligations haven’t disappeared in this transition. If anything, AI heightens them. Lawyers remain personally responsible for their work product, regardless of AI involvement.
Professional obligations haven’t disappeared in this transition. If anything, AI heightens them. Lawyers remain personally responsible for their work product, regardless of AI involvement. This includes responsibility for the advice given, the supervision of work, the protection of client confidentiality, and the accuracy of representations to courts and counterparties. AI outputs require verification. Hallucinations, data leakage, and inappropriate reliance are real risks that cannot be delegated to technology. Issues of confidentiality, privilege, and competence require careful consideration when selecting and using AI tools.
Competence in 2026 increasingly includes technological literacy; understanding what tools can and cannot do, how they are trained, and how to supervise their outputs responsibly. The New Zealand Law Society has published guidance on AI use, and practitioners should treat this as essential reading. The profession must engage with AI not only as users but as stewards of its ethical application, adopting these tools while maintaining the professional standards and client trust that define New Zealand legal practice.
Of course, the efficiency dividend that AI may unlock in turn creates a paradox for professional development. Junior lawyers have traditionally learned by doing high-volume, routine work – the very work AI now handles efficiently. If that foundational work is increasingly handled by AI, how do we train and develop the next legal generation’s skillset, judgment and expertise?
Training and fostering learning pathways will be critical. Practitioners must actively create opportunities for juniors to develop judgment, analytical skills, and client relationship capabilities. This won’t happen accidentally. It requires intentional design: secondments, earlier client exposure, structured supervision, rotations through different practice areas, and deliberate skills development pathways, where once this happened organically.
For our profession, this interregnum isn’t just about technology. It’s equally about generational transition and preserving the wisdom, judgment and professional values that define good lawyering, even as the work that traditionally instilled them looks increasingly different.
New Zealand’s legal market has distinct characteristics worth preserving. We’re smaller, more relationship-driven, and clients often value personal connection alongside technical excellence. AI should enhance, not replace, those relationships. In-house legal teams face similar pressures, with the added expectation that they’ll now deliver more comprehensive capabilities at significantly lower cost.
Our challenge is to adopt these tools whilst honouring our professional obligations and serving the full diversity of New Zealand’s legal needs; from commercial transactions to family law, from litigation to community legal services.
"The New Zealand Law Society has published guidance on AI use, and practitioners should treat this as essential reading.”
The profession has navigated technological change before. What feels different now is the speed and scale of the shift. The defining question is not whether we will use AI. It is whether we will consciously redesign how we practise in light of it. Three things seem clear.
First, engagement is essential. Avoiding AI won’t make it go away. Start experimenting in a low-risk context. Attend Law Society AI learning sessions. Discuss AI with your colleagues and clients.
Second, adaptability is now a core professional competency. The specific tools we use in 2026 may not be the tools we use in 2028. Flexibility and a willingness to learn matter more than mastering any particular platform.
Third, the profession’s fundamental work (judgment, strategy, client relationships, ethical responsibility) remains ours. AI is powerful, but it’s a tool, not a substitute for professional expertise.
The interregnum won’t last forever. The challenge is not to resist the future, nor to surrender to it uncritically; it is to shape it. Handled thoughtfully, AI need not diminish the legal profession. It may sharpen it; clarifying that our enduring value lies in judgement, strategy and trusted advice. How we navigate this period will shape New Zealand’s legal profession for decades to come.
