This essay is written by Divyanshi Gehlot from JNVU, Department of Law. This essay is positioned 2nd in Online Legal Essay Writing Competition by Lawfer 2025.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a revolutionary force in every profession, and the legal profession is no different. From predictive analytics and automated contract review, to AI-based research tools and virtual legal assistants, technology is fundamentally changing how lawyers deliver services and engage with clients. Yet as these tools continue to develop, a series of ethical and professional dilemmas face lawyers – around confidentiality, competence, accountability and fairness. This paper discusses the ethical and professional obligations of lawyers in the era of AI, with particular reference to obligations under the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, comparative standards under the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as global initiatives such as the EU AI Act and UNESCO’s AI Ethics Framework. It also focuses on how to balance innovative solutions with maintaining integrity, in a way that promotes AI as a strength rather than a weakness to the profession.
I. Introduction
The use of Artificial Intelligence in legal practice represents both a development and a risk. Traditionally, lawyers have exercised caution in one’s embrace of new technologies because of the privileged nature of confidentiality and professional independence, but AI-driven platforms in legal research such as Lexis+ AI, Harvey AI, and India’s Supreme Court e-Translation Project have made legal services faster and more accessible. The use of AI also raises ethical issues: What if an AI-based tool misinterprets the precedent of the law? Who is responsible if an AI-produced argument misleads the court? How is a client’s data protected when processed by a third-party AI company?
Professional ethics are the foundation of advocacy, and should provide some level of assurance that legal services are provided with due diligence, honesty, and justice in mind. As attorneys increasingly rely on algorithmic work, it becomes more pressing to understand how these traditional ethical duties shift into the era of AI.
Also Read: Confession and Dying Declaration
II. AI and the Transformation of Legal Practice
Legal AI systems can execute a broad range of operations typically done by humans—such as document reviews, due diligence, legal analytics, and even predicting outcomes. For example, predictive AI models have been incredibly accurate with predicting litigation outcomes based upon judicial patterns and case collections. In India, AI has been integrated into the country’s Supreme Court SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) tool that translates court judgments into a range of regional languages to advance access to justice.
Likewise, the NITI Aayog report titled “National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence #AIforAll” (2018) noted the value of AI in the justice delivery system — and specifically called out e-discovery and case management as two areas where AI was valuable for rebooting systems. Nevertheless, despite these advances, humans need to adjudicate, since AI systems themselves cannot exercise moral or ethical discretion.
III. Ethical Challenges in AI-Assisted Legal Services
A. Confidentiality and Data Protection
In accordance with Section II, Rule 17 of the BCI Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, a lawyer must maintain the utmost confidentiality of a client even when collaborating with a third-party tool. Should AI platforms be hosted on a cloud or developed by a third party, there is a risk that sensitive client information could be accessed by unauthorized individuals and/or subject to data mining. Furthermore, the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) in India specifically requires data fiduciarice (i.e., law firms) to ensure that any processing of data is done lawfully, which is another layer of responsibility and may add an extra degree of liability to law firms. Every data breach or violation of the DPDP Act, resulting from the misuse, negligence or otherwise, of AI tools could also be viewed as an ethical, statutory, and/or rule violation against the BCI Standards.
B. Competence and Technological Competency
The ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) states that a lawyer must provide competent representation and remain apprised of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. There are similar rules for Indian lawyers, although they do not explicitly have a rule requiring the competence surrounding technology; however, under Rule 11, they have an obligation to keep competent. Not understanding the current suite of tools powered by AI could be seen as professional negligence and/or sanctioned behavior.
C. Bias, Fairness, and Accountability
The fairness of AI systems is relative to the training data used. Algorithmic bias can reproduce or amplify discrimination, notably in areas such as bail predictions or sentencing recommendations. A lawyer uncritically relying on an AI output may unknowingly facilitate injustice. The EU AI Act (2024) classifies AI systems used in criminal law decision-making as “high-risk” and requires transparency, human supervision, and accountability.
IV. Professional Responsibility under BCI, ABA & EU Standards
The Rules of the Bar Council of India, which are based on the Advocates Act of 1961, provide for duties to the client, the court, and the profession. Such duties do not change their core significance, but the practice of law in an environmentally responsive AI-enabled environment will require a reexamination of these duties. A specific duty of an advocate provided for under Rule 24 is that an advocate must conduct themselves in a frank and fair manner before the court. If a lawyer uses AI to prepare pleadings, there exists an ethical obligation to check every statement of fact and law so as to ensure that the lawyer does not submit false or fabricated information to the court. The infamous Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (2023) case from the US illustrates this when the lawyers submitted fictitious precedents that were generated by ChatGPT. And a court imposed sanctions on the lawyers because reliance on AI does not absolve a lawyer of their duty. In an ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2023), the ABA clarified that while AI may be used for drafting and research, the lawyer must monitor the use of the application, protect confidential information, and exercise independent human judgment before decisions are made. The EU AI Act, on the other hand, sets the requirement that any AI application used in legal settings must go through a rigorous conformity assessment process to ensure reliability and explainability of the operating system.
V. Case Law Analysis and Global Incidents
The Avianca case serves as a cautionary warning to all, at the global level. The lawyers’ attorneys and lawyers, along with its legal tech development, submitted fake case law to a court and were subject to professional discipline. It shows that even with technology involved, courts will not hesitate to hold attorneys responsible for their own conduct.
While India does not yet have a contested case in its courts on point, there have been early steps in acknowledging the potential for AI, since the Supreme Court’s embrace of SUVAS and significance of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project is a good start, but I note that the references to the necessity of human verification is still a good safeguard.
The 2023 Report from the UK Law Society “The Use of AI in Legal Services” warned that reliance on automated systems without appropriate validation can result in a breach of duties to exercise care and competence. As legal institutions adapt and embrace AI capabilities across the globe, steps to professional ethics must keep pace because rules of ethics help to memorialize justice.
VI. Regulatory and Statutory Frameworks
A. India: The DPDP Act and Proposed AI Policy
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 is the basis for data protection in AI-based legal processes, even if it’s not directed at AI. It imposes duties on data fiduciaries to engage in processing data ethically with consent and reasonable security measures in place.. The NITI Aayog’s AI Strategy also advocates for an ethical framework for AI and the establishment of an AI oversight body, focused on fairness, accountability, and transparency.
B. International Standards: EU AI Act and UNESCO Ethics
The EU AI Act (2024) is the world’s first global regulatory statute on AI, classifying AI for use in legal services as “high-risk.” Under this Act, transparency of AI processes, risk assessments, and human oversight mechanisms are required.. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021) expresses support for human accountability, data governance, and non-discriminatory practices, Principles which are crucial for legal practitioners everywhere.
C. Professional Regulation by Bar Councils
The important bar councils and legal associations are creating guidelines for how their members can adopt and use these AI tools. The Law Society of England and Wales , ABA, and Bar Council of India, have initiated dialogues about responsible AI. Both law schools and continuing legal education programs have incorporated technology competence as a professional standard
VII. Recommendations for Responsible AI Use
- Required Training for AI in Ethics
- Bar Councils should offer programs for AI literacy and ethics in their ongoing professional education programs to promote responsible use.
- Disclosure of AI Usage
- Lawyers should divulge when significant aspects of their work are AI-assisted, especially in pleadings and formal advisory opinions.
- Mandated Human Oversight
- AI tools should supplement, not substitute, human judgment. Legal professionals should independently examine everything generated by AI.
- Data Protection Processes
- Law firms should use encryption and confidentiality agreements when providing data to AI vendors under the DPDP Act.
- Governance Structure for AI
- A national regulatory agency related to legal AI tools should be formed to credential reliable applications.
- Bias Audits
- Periodic audits can be utilized to ensure AI tools are not putting latent bias or perpetuating bias into the legal processes.
VIII. Conclusion
AI’s emergence is a dual-edged sword for the legal profession. It offers efficiency, accessibility, and innovation, but it also questions the ethical underpinning of advocacy. The lawyer in the future will not only need to know statutes and case law, but also understand algorithms and data ethics.
AI cannot approach the moral authority or judgment that lawyers uniquely possess. While AI is here to stay, the Bar Council of India, along with international regulatory bodies, will continue to enhance their ethical codes informing the legal profession, so that AI enhances, rather than replaces, the rule of law.
At the end of the day, the integrity of the profession lies less in resisting technology than guiding its use through justice, accountability, and human dignity.
Endnotes
- Bar Council of India, Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Rule 17, Section II.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).
- NITI Aayog, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence #AIforAll (2018).
- American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 (Competence).
- European Union, Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2023).
- Law Society of England and Wales, The Use of AI in Legal Services (2023).
- UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021).
- Advocates Act, 1961 (India).
- Supreme Court of India, SUVAS Initiative (2021).
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
- Bar Council of India, Handbook on Professional Ethics and Standards of Conduct (2022).
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 275, Review of Advocates Act, 1961 (2017).
- NITI Aayog, Responsible AI for All: Approach Document for India (2021).