AI vs. human capability
Tasks That Still Need a Human
The share of each legal task that professionals say still requires human judgment.
Across the twelve tasks HAQQ measured, professionals consistently say human judgment remains necessary, with agreement never dropping below 88.9%. The clearest case is client-facing legal instructions, where 100% of respondents say a human is still required. Even the most "automatable"-seeming task, preparing legal documents like contracts and wills, still holds at 88.9%. The pattern suggests AI is being adopted as a drafting and research accelerant, not as a substitute for the judgment and accountability lawyers apply at the point of client interaction.
Les données
| Task | Human still required | No |
|---|---|---|
| Read & rewrite legal documents | 96.2% | 3.8% |
| Monitor compliance with regulations | 94% | 6% |
| Review & analyze laws | 93.5% | 6.5% |
| Determine liability per law | 95.2% | 4.8% |
| Advise on market conditions | 91% | 9% |
| Prepare import/export documentation | 97% | 3% |
| Examine records for compliance | 92.4% | 7.6% |
| Interpret policies and laws | 89.5% | 10.5% |
| Prepare legal briefs and opinions | 89.5% | 10.5% |
| Prepare legal documents (contracts, wills) | 88.9% | 11.1% |
| Research laws for hearings | 90% | 10% |
| Provide client legal instructions | 100% | 0% |
Données mesurées - prétraitées à partir du jeu de données d'utilisation réel de l'Index Legal AI de HAQQ (plus de 134 000 points de données dans 30 pays) ou du propre banc d'essai juridique inter-modèles /50 de HAQQ.
Recherches associées
- AI Autonomy Scores by TaskHow autonomously AI can handle each legal task, on a 1-5 scale with confidence intervals.
- AI vs. Human Education LevelThe years of education AI output is judged equivalent to, task by task, versus humans.
- Workforce Impact & Role ChangeAI exposure, augmentation and outlook across legal roles.