Knightsbridge Group | View firm profile
A junior associate sits in front of two screens. One shows a lease agreement. The other, an AI tool scanning for gaps. Within seconds, it flags vague terms, missing clauses, and possible risk points. What once took hours now takes minutes.
This scene is becoming common in legal offices around the world. AI tools are being used to review documents, research case law, sort files, and even help respond to client queries.
Scenes like this are no longer rare. AI is being used to review documents, research case law, draft contracts, and even answer client questions. Legal work is changing fast.
This article looks at how that change is playing out, especially in contract drafting. Can AI help lawyers work faster without weakening the legal strength of the document? And in places like the UAE, where enforceability depends on local rules, what happens when software takes the lead?
AI and the evolution of contract work
AI tools are now built into the way many legal teams handle contracts. Some firms use them to generate first drafts. Others use them to check terms against clause banks or flag gaps before sending a document out. Turnaround times have improved. So has consistency. Lawyers no longer have to rewrite the same clause ten times or scan 80 pages to spot a risk.
The software is trained on large volumes of contract data. It can suggest fallback clauses, predict what might be missing, or pull terms based on similar agreements. This has changed how lawyers work, especially on high-volume contracts like NDAs, leases, and employment terms.
But these tools don’t always reflect the legal rules of a specific country. Many are trained on US or UK law. They tend to favour generic language that reads well but doesn’t always hold up in court. That’s where problems can start, especially in places like the UAE, where the enforceability of a contract depends on mandatory provisions that aren’t always obvious to a machine.
Why enforceability still depends on human review
In the UAE, a contract isn’t valid just because both sides sign it. It has to meet certain rules set out in the Civil Code. Some of these rules can’t be waived, even if both parties agree. That’s where AI can fall short.
A lease clause might sound reasonable to an AI tool trained on UK property law. But if it contradicts a UAE tenancy law, it could be unenforceable. The same goes for joint venture agreements. AI might add familiar boilerplate wording that works elsewhere, but in the UAE, it might clash with local rules or miss requirements that courts expect to see.
The risk isn’t that the AI makes a clear mistake. It’s that it fills in the blanks with terms that seem fine, but don’t match how things work here. Machines can’t always account for legal context or judge whether a clause fits local practice. That still needs a lawyer’s eye, especially in cross-border contracts or high-stakes agreements where a vague clause can turn into a dispute.
Is AI ‘legal advice’? Not yet, but it matters
AI can write a contract. It can even rewrite it, compare it to past versions, and flag missing clauses. But it doesn’t give legal advice. That responsibility still rests with the lawyer. And when something goes wrong, that’s where the question of liability comes in.
If a lawyer relies on AI to draft a contract and misses a key error, the client won’t blame the software. They’ll blame the person who signed off on it. Courts are unlikely to excuse poor legal work on the basis that “the AI suggested it.” That’s not how accountability works.
This makes transparency important. Clients should know when AI tools are involved and how the work was reviewed. Legal tech can improve speed and consistency, but it doesn’t replace legal judgment. That’s especially true here in the UAE, where enforceability can depend on details the software isn’t built to catch. AI can help with the heavy lifting, but it doesn’t carry the weight of professional responsibility.
Wider impact: AI and the day-to-day of legal work
AI is now being used far beyond contract work. It’s being used to scan case law, summarise decisions, draft memos, and even suggest litigation strategies. In-house teams use it to weigh legal risks before deals close. Startups rely on AI-driven templates to cut down legal fees.
Law firms are adapting. Some have built entire internal systems around AI to speed up reviews or sort documents in complex disputes. It’s saving time, which helps keep costs down. At the same time, it’s changing the skills lawyers need. They spend less time sifting through files and more time thinking through what the output means.
Judges are also seeing the shift. Some court documents now arrive part machine-written. UAE courts haven’t pushed back against the use of tech, but they still assess contracts and pleadings in familiar ways. They look for intention, mutual consent, and clear terms. AI can help bring clarity faster, but it still has to fit within that legal frame. The human part still matters.
The future: Smarter tools, smarter lawyers
AI is changing legal work, but it’s not replacing legal judgment. The tools keep improving, yet the person using them still carries the weight of interpretation, context, and risk. That’s especially true in the UAE, where enforceability hinges on local rules and mandatory clauses. A well-drafted clause in one system might fall flat in another. As the tech sharpens, the lawyer’s role becomes less about finding the answer and more about knowing which answers work, and where.