By Chidi Ezenwafor, MCArb, FIMC
Past Secretary, NBA Abuja Branch
Introduction
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the most debated technological innovations of our time. It is no longer a speculative idea; it is embedded in daily conversations and increasingly within professional practice. For the legal profession, its presence is unavoidable. The question is not whether AI will influence the practice of law, but how, and to what degree.
Skeptics fear that generative AI may displace lawyers and diminish the profession’s relevance. Enthusiasts, on the other hand, see it as a revolutionary tool capable of streamlining processes, reducing costs, and enhancing access to justice. Both perspectives contain truth. Yet, as Richard Susskind has argued, technology seldom eliminates a profession wholesale—it reshapes it.¹
Is Generative AI Going Away?
The short answer is no. Once technology demonstrates utility and adoption spreads across sectors, it rarely disappears. From the typewriter to electronic filing systems, each innovation met initial resistance but ultimately became indispensable. Generative AI is following the same trajectory. Its ability to draft documents, summarize cases, and even engage with clients demonstrates that it is not transient—it is here to stay.²
The Impact on Legal Jobs
Generative AI will inevitably disrupt certain categories of legal work. Tasks such as document review, initial due diligence, drafting standard contracts, and conducting basic research are already being partially automated. McKinsey has estimated that nearly 23% of lawyers’ time could be automated using existing AI technologies.³
In Nigeria, where many law firms rely heavily on junior lawyers and paralegals for repetitive drafting and research tasks, the adoption of AI will reduce reliance on these traditional entry-level assignments. However, this disruption does not equate to extinction. Instead, it is a redistribution of roles.
Much like the introduction of ATMs changed the work of bank tellers but did not eliminate them, AI will reorient Nigerian lawyers toward higher-order functions—strategy, litigation advocacy, negotiation, arbitration, and client counseling. These are areas where human judgment, ethics, and empathy remain irreplaceable.
Will Lawyers Become Obsolete?
Generative AI cannot replace the core functions of lawyering. It can generate content, but it cannot generate wisdom. It can provide text that mimics a legal argument, but it lacks context, fairness, and the ability to persuade a judge or jury.
The dangers of blind reliance on AI are already evident globally. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., two lawyers were sanctioned for submitting a brief containing fictitious case citations produced by ChatGPT.⁴ Nigerian practitioners should take note: such conduct would clearly breach Rule 15(3)(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2007, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly citing false authorities or misleading the court. Even reliance on AI without verification could amount to professional misconduct under Rule 1, which mandates a lawyer to uphold the rule of law and promote the cause of justice.
The Nigerian courts and disciplinary bodies have taken a firm stance against misleading the court long before the emergence of AI. In NBA v. Okafor (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 293, the Supreme Court emphasized that legal practice is not a free-for-all and that only properly enrolled legal practitioners are entitled to sign court processes. Similarly, in LPDC v. Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 300, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee disciplined a senior lawyer for conduct deemed incompatible with the honour of the profession. These cases demonstrate that the disciplinary framework is robust, and the same standards will apply to AI misuse where lawyers mislead courts through negligence or overreliance on unverified AI-generated content.
The risks are not confined to law. In medicine, for example, a patient relying on AI dietary advice consumed sodium bromide as a salt substitute and developed life-threatening toxicity.⁵ These cautionary tales illustrate the limits of AI and the dangers of treating it as a substitute for qualified professional judgment.
The lesson for Nigerian lawyers is clear: AI may be a tool, but it is never a substitute. Rule 14 of the RPC requires diligence and competence in the handling of client matters. A practitioner who blindly relies on AI without verification not only risks embarrassing sanctions from the courts but also faces disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).
Survival of the Legal Fittest
Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest is instructive here. The “fittest” lawyers will not be those who resist change, but those who adapt responsibly. The Nigerian legal profession has already adapted to seismic shifts: the digitization of law reports, the adoption of e-filing systems in many state High Courts, and the normalization of virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each seemed disruptive, but each ultimately redefined practice.
Generative AI represents another such shift. Nigerian lawyers who embrace it thoughtfully, setting clear ethical boundaries while leveraging its efficiency, will thrive. Those who deny or misuse it risk professional irrelevance—and potential disciplinary consequences.⁶
Conclusion
Generative AI is not a panacea, nor is it an existential threat to the legal profession. It is a catalyst for transformation—one that will reduce some forms of legal work while amplifying the value of others. The future of law is not machine versus lawyer, but machine and lawyer.
For Nigerian practitioners, the challenge is clear: to adapt, to align AI use with the Rules of Professional Conduct, and to harness AI as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, human expertise. Those who do so will not only survive but define the next chapter of legal practice in Nigeria.
Footnotes
- Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (3d ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2023).
- Daniel J. Siegel, Nobody Asked Me, But … Observations About AI Worth Thinking About, Law.com: The Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/09/04/nobody-asked-me-but–observations-about-ai-worth-thinking-about/.
- McKinsey & Co., Generative AI and the Future of Work in Law (2023), https://www.mckinsey.com.
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).
- Case Report, Annals of Internal Medicine (2023), available at https://www.acpjournals.org.
- Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 (as amended). See also NBA v. Okafor (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 293; LPDC v. Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 300.
Chidi Ezenwafor, MCArb, FIMC
Past Secretary, NBA Abuja Branch
Source: loyalnigerialawyer
