Big law firms strongly encourage AI ... “Win over the presiding judges”

[Financial News] “If you can persuade the presiding judge on the legal merits, use generative AI as much as you like.”
Major South Korean law firms are reportedly actively encouraging the use of AI to draft court filings, including complaints and preparatory briefs. The aim is to improve the efficiency of legal work now that AI can perform a substantial portion of the work done by junior lawyers. However, some courts have a negative view of AI-written briefs, and firms appear to be tightening their pre-submission review procedures in response.
Based on Financial News’ reporting on the 8th, major law firms are encouraging their attorneys to use AI to draft legal documents and review materials. In particular, AI is increasingly being used for tasks traditionally performed by associates (firm attorneys), including case-law research, organizing legal issues and drafting briefs.
Some in the legal profession say AI can perform some tasks at the level of a lawyer with three to five years of experience. Some major law firms are reportedly spending 20 million to 30 million won a month on AI-related services.
“When a law firm spends tens of millions of won every month on AI fees, it means AI has already surpassed or matched lawyers’ abilities,” said one partner at a major law firm. “If lawyers do a good job of the final review, using AI would be a very good precedent for the legal profession.”
As the use of AI expands, the quality of briefs submitted to courts and judges’ perceptions of them are emerging as new challenges. Some judges, including high court presiding judges at the vice-ministerial level, are said to prefer traditional methods of drafting legal documents and to react negatively to briefs that show signs of AI use or appear to have been prepared without adequate review. There are also concerns that a brief could be judged less reliable simply because it was written using AI.
In response, major law firms are encouraging the use of AI while strengthening what is known as the “desk review” process, in which senior attorneys carefully review briefs before they are submitted to court. The aim is to correct awkward phrasing and legal errors in AI-generated text and screen out in advance any legal reasoning that judges might take issue with.
Some firms are reportedly even telling lawyers to “win over the presiding judges,” meaning that briefs should be finalized with the judges’ inclinations in mind. The point is to make active use of AI while ensuring the final work is polished and reliable.
One managing partner at a major law firm stressed, in connection with the use of AI, that “the final judgment and responsibility lie with the lawyer.” The partner added, “What matters is not the skill of using AI, but the ability to spot errors in its output and apply responsible legal judgment.” The partner also noted that “while AI is becoming a tool that improves the efficiency of drafting legal documents, verifying legal judgments and the accuracy of briefs remains the lawyer’s responsibility.”
[email protected] Yu Seon-jun Reporter