About a third of Russian lawyers, roughly 30 percent, express concern about the growing use of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. They worry that AI could erode critical thinking among professionals and create a dependence on automated tools. This perspective comes from Kirill Kondratenko, an IT specialist who serves as deputy general director of the technology firm PravoTech, speaking to socialbites.ca based on survey findings.
A further 20 percent of respondents share concerns about AI increasing the risk of mistakes in legal work. The same portion also raises alarms about AI compromising personal data security and privacy. The remainder of experts generally view the practical potential of AI in positive terms, highlighting opportunities to enhance workflow and case handling.
Kondratenko commented on the survey results by noting that despite anxiety about AI threatening the legal profession, it is unlikely to replace lawyers entirely. Jurisprudence demands a holistic approach to problem solving, including selecting judicial practices as part of case analysis and developing a reasoned position to defend in court. This multi-faceted requirement means human judgment remains indispensable, even as technology augments capabilities. (Attributed to Kondratenko in the survey report.)
He also pointed out that routine tasks could be shifted to AI to streamline practice. AI could accelerate the drafting of standard documents and assist in handling typical claims or lawsuits, freeing lawyers to focus on more nuanced and strategic aspects of cases. This division of labor reflects a pragmatic use of automation to handle repetitive workloads while preserving the core legal reasoning that guides outcomes. (Source attribution: survey results overview.)
Beyond task delegation, Kondratenko suggested that AI adoption in law is unlikely to occur rapidly within the enforcement domain. The legal field remains relatively conservative, with cautious adoption patterns that emphasize reliability, auditability, and transparency in automated processes. This caution aligns with the need to maintain rigorous standards for evidence, argument structure, and professional responsibility in legal practice. (Survey context notes.)
With these mixed views in mind, scholars and practitioners continue to explore how AI can complement professional expertise without supplanting the essential human elements of legal work. The evolving discussion centers on balancing efficiency gains from automation with safeguards that preserve accuracy, accountability, and ethical considerations in the administration of justice. (Analytical synthesis of survey findings.)