Artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as AI) is increasingly appearing in the work of lawyers, from document analysis to drafting court statements. This seems like a logical step towards digitalization: technology helps us work faster, more efficiently, and with less effort. However, the use of AI in the legal field poses new challenges for the legal profession: is it ethical and legal for documents to be prepared by an algorithm rather than a human being? And are we not questioning the authority of the court by submitting such texts as our own arguments?
Ethical issues
When taking the oath of a lawyer in Ukraine, lawyers swear to abide by the rules of legal ethics and to perform their duties with a high degree of responsibility. Since, in the course of their professional activities, lawyers have the right to take any action not prohibited by law, the rules of professional ethics, or the contract for the provision of legal assistance, the use of AI technologies in legal practice is permitted in the absence of such prohibitions.
The rules of legal ethics do not, of course, prohibit the use of AI technologies by lawyers, but neither do they define the ethical limits of their use in professional practice.
Signed by the Ukrainian National Bar Association and the International Association for Ethics and Integrity in Artificial Intelligence in June the 2025 Memorandum of Understanding, while confirming the parties’ intentions to cooperate in order to develop global standards for the ethical use of AI by lawyers and to acquire knowledge about the ethics of AI use, does not in itself contain any practical provisions that could be used as guidelines for the application of AI systems.
Currently, defining the ethical limits of AI use in the provision of professional legal assistance is a task that falls on the shoulders of lawyers themselves.
It is necessary to mention the principles of legal practice and legal ethics, as they should be the first point of reference whenever a lawyer interacts with AI systems. First and foremost, these are principles such as confidentiality, competence and integrity, honesty, and good reputation.
For example, given the numerous studies in the field of data protection when interacting with AI, the leakage of confidential information is a very real risk for users, which is especially important for lawyers to consider given their professional duty to maintain attorney-client privilege.
Therefore, here is some advice when using ChatGPT: test yourself on compliance with the above principles:
- Does the request contain any information that the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Legal Practice” and the Rules of Professional Conduct classify as “attorney-client privilege”?
- Is the information generated by the AI model reliable (especially in terms of searching for case law – does such a case/court decision actually exist)?
- Can the information generated by AI be used for the purposes of fulfilling the assignment and achieving the client’s interests?
Procedural aspect
The current procedural legislation does not contain any prohibitions or restrictions on the use of AI technologies by courts and participants in court proceedings, including lawyers representing their clients’ interests.
At the same timthe Supreme Court’s approach to the use of AI in court proceedings remains unchanged: AI technology can only be used to support and strengthen the rule of law as a means of promoting the proper administration of justice, and not as a source of reliable, scientifically proven information.
However, it is unclear exactly what forms of AI use by participants in the process support and strengthen the rule of law as understood by the Supreme Court.
The approach to establishing the obligation of parties to disclose information about the use of AI in the preparation of procedural documents to the court is unique. Although procedural law does not establish such an obligation for parties, failure to comply with a procedural obligation determined by the court is grounds for the application of procedural coercive measures, such as the imposition of a fine. However, what the court will do with information about a party’s use of AI in preparing procedural documents and how this will affect the court’s decision in the case remains a topic for discussion.
The emergence of AI in the legal profession has become not just a technological trend, but a challenge that is forcing the legal community to rethink its professional standards. On the one hand, AI tools open up opportunities for increased efficiency: they help analyze large amounts of data, structure legal positions, and speed up the preparation of documents. But on the other hand, the legal profession cannot afford to devalue key professional principles such as competence, integrity, confidentiality, and respect for the court.
This balance between benefits and risks is shaping a new understanding of legal responsibility today. AI can be a tool, but not a legal entity, moral author, or bearer of professional ethics. No model, even the most advanced one, can replace human legal analysis, the ability to 
compare facts, evaluate evidence, or take into account the context of a particular case. That is why any use of AI must remain auxiliary; lawyers must fully control the outcome, verify each statement, and make professional decisions independently.
Therefore, the future use of AI in the legal profession depends not on the capabilities of technology, but on the maturity of the professional community. If lawyers use AI as a tool to enhance their own competence, rather than as a substitute for legal thinking, it will become a powerful ally. If, however, technology is allowed to replace responsibility and critical thinking, the risks to justice will outweigh any benefits. Therefore, the key is to integrate innovation wisely, ethically, and with a clear understanding that justice requires human judgment.
artificial intelligence / copyright / intellectual property / lawyer's practice
