AI Won’t Replace Lawyers, But It Will Redefine Them: Hitesh Jain

Hitesh Jain, Managing Partner at Parinam Law Associates recently outlined India’s evolving approach to artificial intelligence governance and reflected on how AI is reshaping the legal profession. Addressing students and professionals on the topic “AI, Law, and the Future of Justice in India,” Jain described India as standing at a decisive inflection point that demands regulatory clarity and professional responsibility.

He began by reflecting on the speed of technological change. Within a single professional lifetime, the world has moved from early desktop computing revolutions to complex debates on artificial intelligence. This transformation, he said, compels lawyers, regulators, and policymakers to rethink their roles in a rapidly evolving ecosystem.

For much of the last decade, India adopted what Jain termed a “wait and watch” approach toward emerging technology regulation. That posture, he said, has now evolved into a calibrated, pro-growth governance model. Unlike the European Union’s prescriptive framework or the United States’ market-driven approach, India has chosen a balanced middle path that treats innovation not as a threat but as an instrument of development, inclusion, and scale.

Jain stressed that innovation and safety are not opposing objectives. Regulation must enable innovation through safety by adopting an outcome-based and risk-proportionate framework. Rather than regulating the underlying mathematics of AI systems, policymakers should focus on tangible harms and measurable outcomes, such as preventing deepfakes and mitigating misuse. By focusing on outcomes instead of code, regulation can remain flexible while safeguarding users. The more important question, he suggested, is not “what could go wrong?” but “what must we design so things go right?”

He then outlined what agile governance should look like. Broad principles must be anchored in legislation, while technical standards and compliance mechanisms should be addressed through subordinate legislation, advisories, and guidelines that can evolve with technology. Given how rapidly large language models have advanced in recent months, rigid statutory frameworks risk becoming outdated. Regulatory sandboxes, he added, are central to this architecture. They allow innovators to test and refine solutions within supervised environments before punitive measures are considered. “Sandbox first, criminalisation last,” he remarked, describing this sequence as the difference between enabling and punitive governance.

On the question of whether India requires a new AI statute, Jain was clear: not yet. Existing legal frameworks governing information technology, data protection, consumer protection, and criminal liability are sufficient to regulate AI applications if interpreted purposively and enforced consistently.

Turning to the profession, Jain referred to a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court, where the Court flagged submissions containing entirely AI-generated arguments riddled with fabricated citations and hallucinated precedents. Judicial time was spent verifying authorities that did not exist. The incident, he observed, demonstrates that AI has already entered Indian courtrooms and underscores the heightened duty of accountability resting on lawyers who deploy such tools. Human oversight, he emphasised, is indispensable.

Rejecting the narrative of “AI versus lawyers,” Jain described the future of legal practice as a hybrid model. Artificial intelligence will perform high-volume tasks such as research, summarisation, and transcription, while lawyers will contribute judgment, strategy, ethical reasoning, and empathy. He urged students to learn to use AI both as a junior assistant capable of drafting and synthesising research, and as a senior sounding board that can test arguments and flag inconsistencies. The essential skill, he said, lies not merely in using AI tools but in knowing when to trust them, question them, and override them.

One of AI’s most transformative effects, Jain noted, is the democratisation of competence. Smaller firms in Tier-2 cities can now access research capabilities comparable to global practices. Lawyers whose first language is not English can draft sophisticated documents with greater precision. Yet this levelling of access carries responsibility. If AI provides everyone with tools of competence, excellence will be defined not by access to information but by discernment and judgment.

Concluding his address, Jain described the present moment as one of extraordinary consequence. The legal frameworks shaped today will govern artificial intelligence for generations. India, he said, has moved from “wait and watch” to “build and lead.” In the age of AI, the law must remain agile, principled.