“Learned”  no more?: AI and the quiet revolution in legal practice

By Kofi Anokye OWUSU-DARKO(Dr)

In the quiet of a courtroom, tradition often feels invincible. Legal robes, solemn judges, and the weight of precedent define a space long thought immune to disruption.

Yet in a world where artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries from medicine to finance, the legal profession has clung to the belief that it is untouchable.

Its rituals, reasoning, and rhetoric have seemed too human, too intuitive, too nuanced to replicate. But even here, change has arrived—not as a junior advocate, but as a digital legal assistant.

As a digital rights advocate with an appreciation for law and information technology, I have long been intrigued by the intersection of technology and justice.

Motivated by AI’s evolving capabilities, I developed a legal assistant tool capable of analysing judgments, identifying legal issues, predicting appellate outcomes, and supporting litigants—particularly those who, under Ghanaian law, are entitled to represent themselves.

The mystique surrounding legal practice—the “learned” tag often attached to lawyers—is gradually dissolving. Legal knowledge is no longer cloistered in chambers; it is now searchable, teachable, and executable by machines.

We now operate in a legal culture where court pleadings are standardized, legal submissions are structured, and clear formats exist for writs, statements of claim, and defences.

This creates space for legally aware litigants to construct substantive arguments grounded in fact and law—while leaving procedural technicalities, such as service and filing timelines, largely to professionals. In this context, Legal AI does not replace the law—it makes it usable.

This article is a firsthand account of how a Legal AI tool I developed, legal Insight Analyser, was used to prepare for a live appeal—without a lawyer in sight—and how that experience reveals the quiet yet powerful ways in which AI is reshaping legal representation.

It illustrates a fundamental shift: the law remains essential, and lawyers—while still vital—must now redefine their role to remain so.

SELF-REPRESENTATION

One of the most empowering features of Ghana’s civil justice system is the right of individuals to represent themselves in court. This right is not theoretical — it is clearly affirmed by the rules of civil procedure.

Under Order 4 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47): “Subject to these Rules, any person may begin and carry on proceedings in person or by a lawyer.”

This rule explicitly recognises that a litigant may commence and continue legal action without a lawyer. It sets the tone for access to justice — that legal representation is a choice, not an obligation.

Additionally, Order 75 Rule 1(2) provides that even where a party starts with a lawyer, they retain the right to take over their own case: “A party represented by a lawyer may, subject to rule 2, discharge the lawyer at any time and proceed to act in person.”

This means that self-representation can be exercised at any point — either from the beginning of the case or at any stage thereafter.

In practice, this right is most visible in Magistrate and Circuit Courts, where laypersons frequently represent themselves, especially in land disputes, matrimonial actions, and debt recovery cases. These proceedings are conducted under the same rules that govern higher courts, making them fertile ground for accessible legal technology.

With the structure and format of pleadings already standardised under C.I. 47, the real barrier is no longer legal entitlement, but practical legal knowledge.

This is where Legal AI tools come in — not as a replacement for lawyers, but as a scaffold for self-representation, helping individuals present their case clearly, logically, and within the bounds of procedural rules.

What was once an intimidating process is now being reshaped — into something navigable, teachable, and increasingly automated. Legal AI does not undermine the law; it amplifies the ability of citizens to access and use it.

THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT

The case that sparked this legal-tech experiment was a land dispute involving the estate of a deceased man and two individuals claiming overlapping ownership of a tract of land.

The plaintiffs — administrators of the estate — sought a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction. The defendants contested the claim on multiple grounds, including adverse possession, estoppel, and procedural irregularities.

After hearing the case, the High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs had properly established title through a seventy-nine year old Indenture, supported by registered documentation and Letters of Administration. The defendants, in contrast, failed to prove either lawful title or uninterrupted possession.

Shortly after the ruling, the defendants indicated their intention to appeal. At that point, I decided to deploy the Legal Insight Analyser — a Legal AI tool I had developed using AI models and legal design frameworks — to test whether it could predict the likely grounds of appeal and support the respondent in defending the decision.

WHAT I DID

The first step was to upload the full High Court judgment into the Legal Insight Analyser I had developed. From there, the tool parsed the judgment and produced a structured legal brief. It identified the core legal issues, ratio decidendi (legal reasoning), and applied laws, and then evaluated potential weak points in the judgment that a losing party might target on appeal.

Based on its analysis, the AI predicted several likely grounds of appeal, including:

• That the plaintiffs’ claim was statute-barred by limitation laws,
• That the 1st plaintiff lacked legal capacity due to the absence of Letters of Administration,
• That the registration of title was flawed or exceeded the originally granted area,
• That the defendants were innocent purchasers,
• That there were procedural errors in the amended writ,
• And that the judgment was against the weight of evidence.

The AI didn’t just list the grounds — it ranked them by likely strength, anticipating which would be most persuasive to an appellate panel.

THE ACTUAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Weeks later, the defendants filed their formal grounds of appeal with the Court of Appeal. When these were uploaded into the system, it became instantly clear: the AI’s predictions were spot on.

The actual grounds mirrored almost exactly those forecasted by the tool — both in content and order of emphasis. From the limitation argument to the innocent purchaser claim, from alleged procedural defects to weight-of-evidence assertions, every major ground had been anticipated.

This was a turning point. It proved that with a well-trained AI, we can not only deconstruct legal reasoning, but also forecast litigation strategy with remarkable accuracy.

 RESPONSE PREPARATION USING LEGAL INSIGHT ANALYSER

With the appeal pending, I used the Legal Insight Analyser to generate a comprehensive appellate response—either for direct use by the respondents, should they opt for self-representation, or as a thoroughly researched brief to support their legal counsel.

The tool produced a structured Heads of Argument, a curated List of Ghanaian Authorities, and detailed legal reasoning addressing each anticipated ground of appeal.

The result was a fully court-compliant submission—persuasive, well-referenced, and professionally formatted. Each legal issue was clearly articulated, supported by relevant precedent, and aligned with procedural standards.

The quality of the output was on par with that of experienced appellate counsel, demonstrating the tool’s capacity to empower litigants with sophisticated legal documentation and strategy.

PREDICTED PANEL QUESTIONS

To simulate real courtroom conditions, the tool was then used to predict likely questions from the appellate panel.

Examples included:

• “Why should we accept that limitation doesn’t apply here?”
• “Did the Lands Commission have authority to enlarge the registered land area?”
• “Was the procedural error in the writ fatal to the proceedings?”

Each question was met with model responses, complete with relevant legal authorities, anticipating how counsel would respond during oral argument. The tool offered not just legal reasoning but courtroom-ready advocacy.

8.0 COUNTER RESPONSE BY APPELLANT AND REBUTTAL BY RESPONDENT

The tool then went further: it predicted likely counter-responses the Appellants might raise, such as:

• Alleged existence of Letters of Administration from the District Court,
• Assertions of good faith purchase,
• Complaints of procedural unfairness.

For each, the tool drafted a rebuttal on behalf of the respondent — citing case law, facts from the record, and legal logic. It also prepared oral advocacy scripts for moments like:

• When the panel asks, “Why are we here?”
• And when the respondent is asked, “What do you have to say?”

These are the real-life turning points in appellate advocacy — and the AI Legal Insight Analyser as developed anticipated and scripted for them.

ASSESSING APPEAL SUCCESS: AI-GUIDED PROBABILITIES

To inform strategy, the Legal Insight Analyser assigned likelihood-of-success ratings to each predicted ground of appeal:

• Limitation – Moderate: Timely issue raised, but with a weak factual basis.
• Capacity Argument – Low: Undermined during cross-examination.
• Procedural Defect – Very Low: No demonstrated prejudice to the defendants.
• Innocent Purchaser Claim – Moderate: Hinges on constructive notice and good faith.
• Weight of Evidence – Very Low: Trial court’s findings were comprehensive and well-supported.

This probabilistic evaluation allowed for a more strategic response—fortifying strong arguments while confidently addressing weaker ones. By translating legal reasoning into actionable insight, the tool enhances decision-making at the appellate stage.

LAWYERS: ADAPT OR BECOME OBSOLETE

• The Automation Paradox: When AI Becomes Your Junior Associate

The legal profession stands at an inflection point. Artificial intelligence has moved from being a theoretical disruptor to an active participant in legal practice. Where once junior associates spent billable hours poring over case law and drafting routine documents, AI tools like the Legal Insight Analyser now accomplish these tasks with remarkable speed and accuracy. This seismic shift demands that lawyers fundamentally reconsider their value proposition.

• From Drafters to Strategists: The Human Edge

The rise of AI doesn’t just change how lawyers work—it reshapes who holds legal knowledge, and with it, power. The days when legal expertise was measured by one’s ability to recall precedents or draft flawless pleadings are ending.

Today’s AI can analyse judgments, predict appeal outcomes, and generate court-ready documents in minutes – tasks that traditionally formed the bread-and-butter of legal practice. But this doesn’t render lawyers obsolete; rather, it redefines excellence in our profession.

The lawyers who will thrive in this new era are those who recognize that their true value lies beyond what can be automated. It resides in high-stakes judgment calls that algorithms cannot replicate: knowing when to settle despite favourable odds, how to navigate ethical grey areas, and crafting creative solutions that defy conventional patterns. These human skills – intuition, moral reasoning, and strategic creativity – become the new markers of legal excellence.

• The New Fee Debate

This transformation inevitably reshapes how legal services are priced and delivered. The traditional hourly billing model, already straining under client scrutiny, becomes untenable for work that AI can perform at a fraction of the cost.

Forward-thinking firms are already experimenting with value-based pricing structures – taking a percentage of recovered damages rather than charging by the hour for research that a machine can complete instantly. Others offer tiered services, pairing AI efficiency with human strategic oversight.

• From Gatekeepers to Guides

Perhaps the most profound change comes in the lawyer-client relationship itself. Just as patients now arrive at doctor’s offices armed with research from medical websites, clients will come to legal consultations with AI-generated briefs and case analyses. Tools like the Legal Insight Analyser will empower them to ask pointed questions: “Why are we not citing this highly relevant precedent?” or “How do you explain the discrepancy between your strategy and the AI’s recommended approach?” Clients armed with AI tools will demand justification for every motion, settlement, or precedent ignored. The lawyer’s role shifts from “trust me” to “here’s why this works.”

This new dynamic transforms lawyers from gatekeepers of legal knowledge to guides through complex strategic landscapes. The most effective practitioners won’t resent these informed questions but will welcome them as opportunities to demonstrate their value. They’ll explain why sometimes the “perfect” legal argument should be avoided if it might antagonize a particular judge, or how strategic considerations might override what appears to be the strongest case on paper.

THE FUTURE OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Breaking the Memorization Model

The traditional law school model—where students memorize case names, judicial dicta, and procedural trivia—is quickly becoming outdated in the era of artificial intelligence. Consider the absurdity of an exam question that asks:
“Identify the originating case and the judge who said, ‘No one, however mighty and omnipotent, can substitute one thing for a thing that has never existed.’”

This kind of question tests rote memorization—a skill made nearly obsolete by AI tools like Legal Insight Analyser. These tools can instantly locate the quote, provide the full citation, trace the procedural history, analyse later treatment, and compare interpretations across jurisdictions.

Rather than fostering reasoning, argumentation, or judgment, students are using their cognitive energy to compete with machines at a task machines now do far better. What’s needed is a shift in pedagogy—one that trains students to critically evaluate, contextualize, and challenge AI-generated legal arguments, not mimic or rival them.

  Letting AI “Know the Law”

The first pillar of legal training—comprehensive knowledge of the law—has changed fundamentally. In the past, students spent countless hours memorizing cases and statutes. Today, AI tools like Legal Insight Analyser can be developed to retrieve any precedent, analyse its treatment, and extract key passages with superhuman precision. This renders rote memorization unnecessary. No human can match AI’s recall or cross-referencing abilities.

Testing students on their memory of the law is now as outdated as handwriting deposition transcripts in the era of voice-to-text. Instead, we must acknowledge that AI is the new legal research assistant—able to scan the entire corpus juris and surface the most relevant authorities in seconds.

  Leaving Legal Strategy to Lawyers

While AI masters the technical law, human lawyers must specialize in what machines can’t do: understanding the human elements of legal decision-making. The old saying that “a great lawyer knows the judge” is more relevant than ever.

Curricula must now teach students to analyse judicial temperaments, anticipate unspoken preferences, and tailor arguments to specific judges.

That means practical courtroom strategy: knowing, for example, that Justice Anokye dislikes citations of foreign judgments, Judge Mensah prioritizes policy in contract disputes, or the Commercial Court favours concise, numbered arguments.

Students must also learn when to override AI’s recommendations—understanding that while a precedent might be technically sound, citing it could backfire with a particular judge. This human awareness of courtroom dynamics is where lawyers still hold irreplaceable value.

 The New Collaborative Model

The future of legal education lies in teaching students to collaborate with AI, while strengthening the human judgment machines can’t replicate. This means developing three core competencies:

1. Technical Mastery: Framing effective legal queries, interpreting AI outputs, and verifying findings from tools like Legal Insight Analyser.
2. Strategic Override: Knowing when and why to deviate from AI advice—based on context, client goals, or courtroom strategy.
3. Professional Judgment: Spotting what AI misses, crafting novel arguments, and making ethical decisions in complex situations.

Tomorrow’s lawyer will be a hybrid practitioner—one who combines AI’s computational power with human insight into law, strategy, and ethics. These “bilingual” professionals—fluent in both legal reasoning and algorithmic logic—will be more effective than either alone.

This is not the end of legal practice. It’s the beginning of a more strategic, transparent, and impactful era. The future belongs to lawyers who embrace this model—those who not only understand what the law says, but also why a given approach makes the most strategic sense. They will raise the standard of legal service and deliver deeper value to clients.

12.0 ENHANCING JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING

Tools like the Legal Insight Analyser have the potential to support the judiciary in an equally transformative way—serving as strategic research assistants that help judges analyse pleadings, witness statements, and legal arguments to arrive at well-reasoned decisions.

Properly guided through legal prompt engineering, AI can perform several critical functions:

• Synthesising Case Materials: Efficiently parsing complex records to identify determinative facts, legal issues, and evidentiary gaps.
• Assessing Judgment Quality: Acting as a quality assurance tool by evaluating draft judgments against the pleadings, evidence, and applicable law.
• Accelerated Drafting: Assisting in producing initial drafts of judgments—particularly for procedural or well-established issues—while preserving judicial discretion and oversight.

When thoughtfully integrated, such tools will allow judges to enhance both the speed and quality of adjudication. This is especially relevant in systems burdened by case backlogs and resource constraints. AI enables faster resolution of disputes without sacrificing legal rigour.

It positions AI not merely as a disruptive force, but as a collaborative partner in legal reasoning, quality assurance, and timely adjudication. The goal is not to mechanise judgment, but to augment the judge’s analytical capacity—freeing them to focus on the nuanced, context-sensitive decisions that define judicial excellence.

 A WORD OF CAUTION

Legal AI is not a substitute for legal understanding. While the capabilities of the Legal Insight Analyser as I developed are impressive, it is important to sound a word of caution. Like any AI system, it is only as effective as its design, training, and the understanding of its operator.

The developer must not only know what the tool is supposed to do but must also possess a working grasp of AI prompt engineering to guide the system’s evolution. Without this, the tool may generate what is known as “hallucinations” — outputs that are factually incorrect, nonsensical, or misleading. In legal contexts, such errors can be not just costly, but dangerous.

If a user lacks a clear understanding of the legal issues at hand—or does not know how to guide the AI using effective legal prompting—the tool cannot compensate for that knowledge gap. In such cases, it becomes a classic scenario of the blind leading the blind.

A useful analogy is Google Maps: if a driver knows their destination, they can identify and override faulty directions. But without that knowledge, the system may lead them to dead ends, unnecessary detours, or delays. What was designed to simplify can quickly become a source of confusion and error.

Therefore, while Legal AI offers extraordinary potential, it must be used wisely, critically, and always with human oversight. It is a powerful assistant — not a legal oracle.

CONCLUSION

This was not a simulation. It was a real case, involving real parties, a High Court judgment, and an active appeal. And yet, every element—from analysing the ruling to preparing appellate submissions—was undertaken without a lawyer present, powered by a carefully trained AI system through legal prompt engineering.

The performance of the Legal Insight Analyser revealed something profound: access to justice no longer depends solely on access to legal professionals. With the right tools, individuals can not only understand the law, but also engage it meaningfully.

Tools like this are effective only when built and applied by those who grasp both the legal and technological domains—where the two intersect and how they inform each other. Absent that dual fluency, AI can produce persuasive but flawed outputs, risking serious legal consequences.

This is more than a technological milestone—it is a transformative moment. One where knowledge is democratized, where strategy overtakes recall, and where lawyers must evolve from technicians to tacticians. Perhaps most importantly, Legal AI brings to life the constitutional and procedural right of self-representation.

What has long existed in the rules of civil procedure as a formal entitlement is now becoming functional and accessible. AI transforms this right from abstract principle into practical reality, enabling ordinary citizens to participate meaningfully in complex litigation.

This future does not eliminate the lawyer—it redefines the lawyer. The profession now demands a legal strategist: someone who blends human insight with technological fluency, welcomes the informed client, and exercises sound judgment in an AI-augmented landscape. The law remains indispensable—with the lawyer, more than ever, as a strategist.

In this new paradigm, the “learned” lawyer is no longer measured by the ability to recite case and locate the law, but by the capacity to apply it with strategy, context, and judgment. Knowing the law is necessary but no longer sufficient for being truly “learned”.

The author is a Digital Rights Advocate, holds an EMBA (IT Management), an LLB and LLM (IT & Telecommunication) (visit : Kofianokye.blogspot.com; Kofidarko2.blogspot.com) contact: [email protected])

The post “Learned”  no more?: AI and the quiet revolution in legal practice appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story