THE FUTURE CANNOT BE ARRESTED: A LEGAL REJOINDER TO THE CRITICISM OF LAW STUDENTS, INTERNS, AND THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE- Dr. Larry L. Mweetwa
THE FUTURE CANNOT BE ARRESTED: A LEGAL REJOINDER TO THE CRITICISM OF LAW STUDENTS, INTERNS, AND THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
By Dr. Larry L. Mweetwa
I have read with considerable interest the recent article by learned counsel Ms. Chiyeso Lungu regarding the perceived shortcomings of modern law interns, particularly the allegation that they “do not read” and instead “abuse Artificial Intelligence (AI) in untidy ways.”
Whilst the concerns regarding professional standards, diligence, and legal reasoning are legitimate and deserving of attention, it is respectfully submitted that the criticism of Artificial Intelligence, as a tool of legal research and productivity, risks repeating a historical pattern that has accompanied nearly every significant technological advancement in the legal profession.
As the ancient proverb wisely reminds us:
“When the winds of change blow, some build walls while others build windmills.” Those that build windmills will benefit from the power of nature but others will blame nature for the wind.
“Every time a new tool is invented, the masters of the old tool claim the soul of the craft is dying, when in reality, only their monopoly on speed is expiring.”
“The river flows forward, never backward; a man who tries to block its path with his feet will only find himself wet.”
But history is a sturborn witness,
The legal profession stands at precisely such a moment.
The History of Resistance to Innovation
History is replete with examples of professionals resisting tools that later became indispensable. There was a time when calculators were condemned for destroying mathematical ability.
There was a time when computers were dismissed as unnecessary luxuries.
There was a time when electronic legal databases were regarded as shortcuts for lazy lawyers.
There was a time when online research platforms were viewed with suspicion by practitioners who insisted that true legal scholarship could only be found through physical law reports and dusty library shelves.
Most remarkably, there was a time when Google itself was ridiculed as an unreliable source of information.
Today, however, we have Google Scholar,
Law teacher, LexisNexis or Juta as one of the most widely accepted legal research tools in the world, relied upon by academics, researchers, students, judges, and practitioners alike.
The very technology once criticized is now cited in court submissions, academic papers, and judicial reasoning.
As the saying goes:
“The stone rejected by the builders often becomes the cornerstone.”
The Encyclopedia Analogy
One must ask a practical question.
Why should a law student spend six hours searching through shelves of encyclopedias and law reports merely to locate a legal principle that modern technology can identify in six seconds?
The objective of legal education has never been to test one’s ability to walk between library shelves.
The objective is to understand, analyse, interpret, distinguish, and apply the law.
No client pays a lawyer for the number of steps taken inside a library.
Clients pay lawyers for accurate legal solutions.
If technology can identify authorities faster, then the lawyer’s responsibility becomes deeper legal analysis, not unnecessary manual labour.
Indeed, insisting that every generation must repeat the inefficiencies of previous generations is akin to insisting that a farmer abandon a tractor and return to using a hand hoe simply because his grandfather did so.
AI Does Not Replace Thinking
The criticism that some interns submit poor work generated through AI is not a criticism of AI itself.
It is a criticism of poor legal practice.
A poorly trained lawyer can misuse a textbook.
A poorly trained lawyer can misuse Google.
A poorly trained lawyer can misuse a legal database.
Likewise, a poorly trained lawyer can misuse Artificial Intelligence.
The problem is not the tool.
The problem is the user.
As Abraham Lincoln is often credited with observing:
“Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.”
Artificial Intelligence is merely a sharper axe.
It remains the lawyer who must decide where and how to strike.
The Evolution of Legal Practice
The law itself is an evolving discipline.
Legal practice has transitioned from handwritten pleadings to typewriters, from typewriters to computers, from physical filing to electronic filing, and from physical hearings to virtual proceedings.
If every technological advancement had been resisted indefinitely, the legal profession would still be drafting pleadings by candlelight.
One is reminded of a satirical observation:
“Had some lawyers been present at the invention of the wheel, they would have demanded written submissions proving why walking was no longer sufficient.”
The reality is that innovation does not seek permission.
It seeks adoption.
And history demonstrates that innovation eventually prevails not because it is fashionable but because it is efficient.
The Coming Generation of Lawyers
The uncomfortable reality is that future judges, magistrates, registrars, legal practitioners, and law professors will emerge from a generation that has grown up with Artificial Intelligence.
The legal profession of tomorrow will not ask whether AI should exist.
It will ask whether lawyers know how to use it responsibly.
The debate before us is therefore not whether AI should be permitted.
That question has largely been answered by reality itself.
The real questions are:
1. How do we train lawyers to verify AI-generated authorities?
2. How do we maintain ethical and professional standards?
3. How do we ensure AI enhances rather than replaces legal reasoning?
4. How do we develop critical thinking in an era of technological abundance?
Those are the questions worthy of serious legal discourse.
Wisdom from the Courts of History
Every generation believes it occupies the pinnacle of wisdom.
Yet history teaches otherwise.
The horse once criticized the motor vehicle.
The letter criticized the telephone.
The telephone criticized email.
Email criticized instant messaging.
Now some criticize Artificial Intelligence.
The pattern is remarkably consistent.
As an African proverb teaches:
“The river that forgets its source will dry up, but the river that refuses to flow will become a swamp.”
The legal profession must honour its traditions without becoming imprisoned by them.
Conclusion
The modern law intern who uses Artificial Intelligence responsibly, verifies authorities independently, applies legal reasoning rigorously, and exercises professional judgment is not a threat to the legal profession.
Rather, such an individual represents the inevitable evolution of legal practice.
The future lawyer will not be measured by how long it took to find information.
The future lawyer will be measured by how effectively they analyse, apply, and utilise information.
The law has never rewarded inefficiency for its own sake.
It rewards competence.
To borrow a final satirical observation:
“Some insist that wisdom only exists in dusty books; yet when the roof leaks, they quickly call a young engineer who learned from a computer.”
Artificial Intelligence is not the enemy of legal practice.
Ignorance is.
Technology merely exposes the difference.
The future cannot be arrested.
It can only be prepared for
