**AI's Role in the Legal System Sparks Debate** As artificial intelligence (AI) technology advances, its potential role in the legal system is becoming a topic of significant discussion. Chief Justice Andrew Bell of New South Wales, who began his legal career in 1995, reflects on the evolution of legal practices. Back then, urgent documents were sent via fax, and legal research relied on physical libraries. Today, Bell advocates for the necessity of human involvement in certain aspects of the legal process, emphasizing that "there are some things that AI can't do, and which it is desirable it doesn't do." Concerns about AI's integration into court systems stem from fears that it could undermine fundamental judicial values, such as equality before the law and the independence of the judiciary. The legal system often presents challenges for those lacking resources, leading to delays and confusion. While AI can streamline some processes, it also raises questions about bias and the quality of legal reasoning. Legal scholar Richard Susskind predicts that the 2020s will be a pivotal decade for AI in law. He notes that while the first 65 years of legal technology involved automating traditional tasks, the future may see machines taking on more complex roles. A UNESCO survey from 2024 revealed that 44% of legal professionals worldwide are already using generative AI tools for various tasks. In Australia, law firms have been investing in AI for tasks such as document review and drafting legal advice. However, the use of AI has not been without controversy. In recent years, there have been numerous cases in Australia where AI-generated content has led to significant errors, including fictitious citations and outdated legal advice. One notable incident involved a lawyer representing a boy accused of murder, who submitted AI-generated documents containing false information. The lawyer later expressed regret, stating, "We are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred." In response to these issues, Bell has issued guidelines for the use of AI in legal proceedings, prohibiting its use for affidavits and primary legal research. Other judges have also criticized the use of AI in court, highlighting the risks of relying on inaccurate information. The pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote hearings, prompting discussions about the future of court experiences. Some jurisdictions have implemented online courts, which can eliminate the traditional courtroom setting. Bell emphasizes the importance of human involvement in the judicial process, particularly in jury trials where public trust and integrity are paramount. While some judges have begun to experiment with AI tools, Bell believes that certain functions, such as exercising discretion and determining facts, should remain the responsibility of human judges. He argues that the nuances of witness credibility and demeanor are beyond the current capabilities of AI. Despite advancements in AI's emotional intelligence, Bell maintains that the experience and judgment of human judges are irreplaceable. As the legal community navigates the integration of AI, the balance between efficiency and the preservation of justice remains a critical concern. The ongoing dialogue about AI's role in the legal system reflects broader societal questions about technology's impact on fundamental rights and the pursuit of justice. As the legal landscape evolves, the challenge will be to harness the benefits of AI while safeguarding the core values of the judiciary.