I’ve seen AI get better at crunching stats and spotting patterns, but justice isn’t just a math problem. An algorithm can flag precedent or calculate risk, but it can’t feel the human cost or read between the lines of a witness’s story. In my cases, I might use AI to sift through thousands of filings in seconds, but the final argument—when I lay out why a sentence should be adjusted or a contract clause should be void—has to come from a lawyer who can weigh nuance, morality, and precedent in a way a cold program can’t. So I’d use AI as a tool, not a replacement, because the courtroom is as much about human judgment as it is about the law.