Yesterday, Reno Omokri made a post on his Facebook page stating how AI is rapidly taking over the lawyer’s job. He averred that AI is being used to make laws and give judgments in some parts of the world. Of course, no one is disputing that AI is a developing innovation and is here to stay, but Reno is overhyping the whole thing, which, as far as reality is concerned, is a mirage.
A Legal Practitioner, as defined under section (24) of the Legal Practitioners Act (2004), is a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of the Act to practice as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. For someone to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner, section 2(1) of the Act provides that such a person must have his name on the Roll; otherwise, he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria. To have one’s name on the Roll, section 7 of the Act prescribes that such a person must have been called to the Bar by the Body of Benchers and must produce a certificate of his call to the Bar to the Supreme Court Registrar. And for you to be called to the Bar, you must have had your LL.B Degree and BL certificate. The question now is: does AI have an LL.B. and BL certificate? Because Section 8(2) of the LPA also provides for a lawyer as the only person having the right of audience in all courts in Nigeria to represent clients; any other person cannot. That’s to say, an AI can’t go and move a motion or bail application in court without spending five years at the university pursuing an LL.B degree and another one year for BL at the Law School. Section 22(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioner Act specifically mentions some documents that are meant for lawyers to sign and not any other person, for example, instruments relating to immovable property.
Furthermore, Mr. Reno, you should note that the law is settled that it is only a legal practitioner that can prepare and sign court processes. Therefore, the signing of a court process by a person whose name is not on the Roll will render such a process incompetent. This has been given judicial blessing in the case of Adeneye v. Yaro (2013) 3 NWLR.
Let’s assume AI even prepared the brief you’re taking to court. Who will then sign it for it to be valid? An ‘AI Robert’? Of course not. It must be signed by a lawyer, or else your smart opposing counsel will cite the case of Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR to get rid of your worthless paper for lacking a lawyer’s signature. Court processes can be said to have been properly signed, Mr. Reno, if they fulfill the following, as per, Supreme Court:
- ‘The signature of Counsel, which may be in any form;
- The name of Counsel clearly written as indication of authorship of the signature;
- The name of the person(s) Counsel represents; and
- Name and address of the law firm under which Counsel practices as legal practitioner or solicitor/advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.’
Any breach of the above is fundamental and will make the process suffer the fate of every incompetent brief, which is ‘striking out’. On this, I place reliance on the Supreme Court decision of SLB Consortium v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR.
www.legalnaija.com/store
In addition, AI can’t replace the analytical skills, legal advocacy skills and deep thinking needed by lawyers. AI cannot build trust nor have the emotional intelligence to guide a client through the toughest moments of their lives, which is a skill required during client interviews. Practicing law requires human intelligence and emotion; after all, your clients are human too. Adaptability, cunning psychological techniques, as well as appealing to emotion, especially during cross-examination, are very sacrosanct, and AI doesn’t have all this.
Furthermore, you assert that ‘AI is being used to give judgment’. Do you think such judgment will be just and reasonable? Does AI have a sense of discernment? Let me briefly narrate an enriching court session I witnessed this week at the National Industrial Court, Kano Division. Monday was slated for the adoption of the final written addresses. The learned counsel filed a reply on point of law, and during the adoption, the counsel to the plaintiff, who’s a senior advocate, vehemently argued that National Industrial Court Rules don’t recognize any reply on point of law in a written address. Everyone in the court and the Learned Judge were in awe, but without citing any case nor section, My Lord asked the learned silk a simple question: ‘Learned silk, confirm to this Honourable Court that you have never filed a reply on point of law before [since you started practicing]?’ Learned silk replied with a coping smile on his face that he’s always a plaintiff, so he has never. Everyone burst out laughing, and the Judge said: ‘When I see you in court for adoption of final written address, I know you’re up to something, because you can allow your junior counsel to come a do the adoption, in anyway, learned silk, there is no way I can deny him a reply on point of law as it will go down to issue of fair hearing.’ And that was how the objection was overruled.
Please, if I may ask, can an AI Judge make the above erudite discernment? Don’t you think you think it will be swayed with the argument of the learned silk that National Industrial Court rules don’t allow reply on point of law, and which the NIC rule is actually silent about, and thereby deny the innocent learned counsel the opportunity to be heard?
Based on the foregoing, I end with the saying of my Senior Learning Colleague A.A. Abdulrauf: ‘As long as law remains a discipline, it cannot be approached just because one can speak English. AI will never replace lawyers; it will just be a tool to ease lawyers’ work.’ AI isn’t here to replace legal practitioners’ work but rather to change how they work. It is a tool to be used in legal research; even in that, it must be used consciously, as AI only knows the general principles of law but not its intricacies. It can also be used for drafting some legal instruments that have a generally acceptable sample across the globe or a region, but not for draftings to be taken to court. On this, I submit that, AI won’t eliminate the need for lawyers but will transform their roles. It can automate routine tasks, which will help lawyers spend more time on the human aspects of the role, such as client relationships and advocacy. I say no more!
Isah Bala Garba is a level 300 student from Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached for comments or corrections on: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/isah-bala-garba-301983276 isahbalagarba05@gmail.com or on 08100129131.