During MN Law University’s 4th convocation in Nagpur, the speaker urged lawyers to build technology skills and use AI as an assistive tool to save time, not as a replacement for human judgment.

The speeches reinforce a judicial view that AI should be used responsibly, with safeguards to preserve essential human competencies in legal practice.

AI can save time but cannot judge, counsel, or replace fundamental human tasks, and overreliance on AI-generated citations can harm clients and breach professional integrity.

Clear boundaries were set: AI can retrieve and draft, but cannot counsel, warranting careful human verification of all AI-produced documents.

Attendees stressed understanding how AI tools work—prompt engineering, evaluating outputs, and spotting hallucinations—to ensure human oversight.

AI should be used with skill and caution, and no AI-created document should pass a lawyer’s hands without thorough human authentication; humans must retain control over reasoning and ethics.

The speakers called for a balance between embracing innovation and preserving core intellectual functions in the legal profession.

AI can save time but cannot match a trained legal mind and must operate under human oversight.

AI’s probabilistic nature means it can retrieve or draft but cannot counsel or judge, underscoring the need for human judgment.

Several speakers affirmed that AI cannot replace core legal functions or the trained mind, emphasizing human judgment, empathy, and accountability.

Technology should serve the legal profession, not master it, with AI’s efficiency acknowledged but the essence of law rooted in human intellect.

Participants urged lawyers to master AI fundamentals, critically evaluate outputs, and beware false citations and AI hallucinatory errors to prevent client harm.