header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Why AI needs senior lawyers on board

252175
© Getty images
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology

Writing in NLJ this week, Clive Hopewell of Bird & Bird argues that senior lawyers should be visible participants in the AI revolution rather than passive observers.

Reflecting on a career that began with fax machines and paper mark-ups, he describes AI as becoming as 'indispensable' as the internet itself. Bird & Bird’s approach has focused on encouraging lawyers to develop practical use cases, while maintaining caution around legal research, where hallucinations remain a professional risk. Hopewell cites a due diligence exercise involving 250 contracts where AI-assisted review delivered a 90% saving in time, demonstrating the technology’s potential when paired with human judgement.

His message to younger lawyers is equally clear: develop AI literacy now, but never at the expense of legal fundamentals. The future belongs to lawyers who combine expertise with adaptability.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll