Artificial intelligence will not make lawyers unnecessary. But it will change what makes a lawyer valuable. The future belongs to lawyers who can combine legal judgment, technological awareness and practical business advice.
Artificial intelligence has become one of the most discussed topics in the legal market. For some, it is a breakthrough. For others, it is a threat. For many lawyers, it is still something between curiosity, pressure and uncertainty.
The better question is not whether AI will “replace” lawyers. The better question is: what kind of legal work will still require a human lawyer, and what kind of work will be transformed by technology?
Katarzyna Szczudlik’s view is pragmatic. AI is not new, and it is not magic. It is another stage in the long development of technology, automation and data-driven decision-making. What is new is the accessibility of generative AI tools and the speed at which they are entering everyday professional work.
For lawyers, this creates both opportunity and responsibility.
AI is not the end of legal work
Legal work is not only about producing text. It is about understanding context, assessing risk, interpreting uncertainty and taking responsibility for a recommendation.
AI can support research, drafting, summarising, translation, structuring documents and preparing first versions of content. It may accelerate tasks that previously took hours. But legal advice is not valuable because it is long or formally correct. It is valuable because it helps the client make a decision.
This is where the role of the lawyer remains essential.
A lawyer must understand:
- what the client is trying to achieve,
- what regulatory risks matter in practice,
- what is uncertain,
- what can be accepted,
- what should be avoided,
- and what recommendation should be made.
AI can assist in the process. It cannot carry professional responsibility for the final judgment.
The rise of the “lawyer 2.0”
The lawyer of the future will not be defined only by knowledge of legal provisions. That knowledge remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient.
The “lawyer 2.0” needs a wider set of competencies:
- legal expertise,
- technological literacy,
- understanding of business models,
- ability to work with data,
- ability to communicate clearly,
- and the judgment to know when AI output is useful and when it is dangerous.
This is particularly important in areas such as AI Act compliance, GDPR, FinTech regulation, DORA, NIS2, MiCA and digital market entry. These are not purely legal topics. They sit at the intersection of law, technology, product development, compliance and business strategy.
A lawyer advising in these areas must be able to speak with founders, product teams, engineers, compliance officers, boards and regulators. AI does not reduce the importance of that skill. It makes it more visible.
AI creates efficiency, but also new risks
The promise of AI is efficiency. It can accelerate routine work, support analysis, and help professionals move faster.
But speed alone is not the same as quality.
For lawyers, the main risks include:
- entering confidential or personal data into unsuitable tools,
- relying on incorrect or invented outputs,
- failing to verify legal sources,
- losing control over professional secrecy,
- misunderstanding how a tool processes data,
- and treating AI-generated text as legal analysis.
In legal practice, these risks are not theoretical. Lawyers work with sensitive information, confidential strategies, personal data and regulated decisions. Using AI without governance may create problems under data protection law, professional ethics, contractual confidentiality and internal security policies.
The responsible use of AI requires rules, not improvisation.
AI may change the tools. It may change the workflow. It may change client expectations.
But it does not remove the need for lawyers who can think clearly, understand technology and take responsibility for advice.
That is the real meaning of the lawyer 2.0.
