Artificial intelligence is starting to prove its mettle for the legal sector, assisting lawyers in building compelling cases. According to Harvard Law School, many law firms are considering AI to transform the 80/20 inversion, i.e., spending 80% of their time collecting information and only 20% in strategic analysis.
A particularly excellent application of AI lies in assisting attorneys with proving malicious conduct, a traditionally complex task. These cases depend on the premise that the defendant caused substantial damage, either personal or financial, while fully aware of the risks.
Naturally, establishing this can be daunting through conventional means. Let’s see how AI can change that and help find justice for people who have suffered because of wilful agents.
Pattern Analysis to Identify a History or Likelihood of Harm
AI algorithms can successfully parse through large volumes of data to unearth hidden patterns. For example, they can scan e-mails and messages at great speed and flag inconsistencies that signal something is amiss.
Handling such large datasets with the speed and accuracy that legal situations demand is perhaps one of AI’s flagship competencies. This data could refer to:
- Internal company information that shows that employees were aware of a product’s risks
- Electronic communication between various involved parties
- Information pertaining to other possible victims in the case
Lately, some professionals have been experimenting with agentic AI for analysis to simplify their workflows. Building on conventional, static pattern analysis, agentic AI can lend more autonomy to the systems. It speeds up research and allows lawyers to conduct strategic analysis even in complex cases.
That said, law firms going this route must be cautious about implementing human guardrails. Since agentic systems can handle workflows independently, they must know when to escalate decisions to human counterparts.
Predictive Analytics to Estimate Damages
Another application of AI in this context is finding a ballpark for the damages that lawyers can demand.
Typically, exemplary and punitive damages are standout cases and not part of all personal injury claims. Consequently, it can get difficult to build estimates and arguments due to a lack of similar jurisdictions to refer to.
Oft-referenced examples, such as the McDonald’s 1997 hot coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald’s), may not always be adequate to base current situations on. Interestingly, a San Francisco woman filed a similar lawsuit against McDonald’s in 2023 after spilled coffee left her with painful burns.
However, the 2023 case differed in some key ways. NPR reported that the victim did not face third-degree burns or need extensive treatment, unlike Liebeck. So, comparing her situation with the earlier compensation of $160,000 may not be optimal.
Loewy Law Firm notes that different regions may have caps on the exemplary damages that a jury can decide to award. For example, in Texas, USA, the cap is the greater of $200,000 and twice the economic damage. Additionally, the jury can offer $750,000 as non-economic damages.
In Canada, the highest punitive damages in history were awarded in the 2023 Blue Cross Life Insurance Company case. The Ontario Court awarded $1,500,000 to Sarah Baker, a 38-year-old woman who faced a stroke but was denied benefits.
AI tools can help lawyers find insights rapidly, learning from key legislation and such historical instances much faster than would be possible manually.
Generative AI to Test Diverse Arguments
In our complicated world, some circumstances present unique challenges for lawyers. Multiple arguments may be possible, but which one will be legally effective and ethically sound? Gen AI tools can help attorneys brainstorm ideas to understand these unique cases by raising purposeful points.
For example, an ongoing lawsuit in Canada claims that the Inuit were historically subject to non-consensual medical experiments. In October 2025, the federal government seemed to lean toward dismissing it. The argument is that a significant period has passed since the 1960s and 70s, and the case lacks evidence.
What should the stance of different legal circles on this situation be?
The case requires an evaluation of socio-cultural factors that have impacted indigenous people in Canada. It also requires an assessment of the degree of federal involvement. The arguments could range from a lack of informed consent to actions taken for the “greater good” of the scientific community.
Gen AI tools can integrate natural language processing and machine learning models to build balanced arguments for clients. When selecting tools, professionals should prioritize those that use authoritative content and integrate human oversight. It will ensure adherence to ethics, reliability, and transparency.
As of 2025, AI is routinely springing up surprises in the legal world. NBC News reports how a woman in California used ChatGPT to protest against her eviction notice. The AI tool identified errors in previous procedural decisions and weighed possible future actions, eventually helping her win the case.
In another case, a US law firm had to apologize for an AI-led mistake in a bankruptcy court filing. Some of the citations in the submission were actually inaccurate or non-existent.
Since the potential of AI is vast, and so is its potential for risk, legal professionals should use it cautiously. It can be especially stellar in cases involving malicious conduct, processing data speedily, and unraveling insights to open up new possibilities for clients.