The integration of artificial intelligence into the legal sector is accelerating, raising questions about the proper boundaries of technology in judicial work. Lawyers are increasingly adopting these tools, and the judiciary may be following suit. For example, the Canadian legal database CanLII now employs generative AI to assist users. Consequently, when lawyers and judges access these services, they are effectively engaging with an AI system, even if they are not aware of it.

Writing reasons for a decision is widely considered the essence of judging. In her memoir, former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin described the process of drafting judgments as integral to determining the proper outcome. She noted that she often began with an inclination of what the answer should be. However, the act of writing clarified whether that initial thought was correct, and in some instances, it even led to a different conclusion.

The cognitive impact of delegating these tasks to digital devices warrants scrutiny. A recent study from the MIT Media Lab suggests that excessive reliance on AI-driven solutions could contribute to cognitive atrophy. This concern mirrors broader debates about whether technology is dulling human cognition. The Harvard Gazette explored this phenomenon in an article titled “Is AI dulling our minds?” referencing the MIT research.

The Value of Handwriting in Legal Analysis

Research indicates that writing helps individuals think and create meaning. While handwriting engages the brain’s memory systems more deeply than typing, both methods facilitate deliberation. Handwriting, in particular, strengthens memory and learning through an “encoding effect,” where the physical effort of forming letters improves retention. Typing, while efficient for recording large amounts of information, tends to result in shallower processing and a tendency to transcribe verbatim.

For judges, the requirement to put thoughts to paper serves as a deliberate check on their reasoning. If the writing process is delegated to a machine, the mind may lose the ability to clarify and refine its own logic. This creates a practical challenge for the legal system, where the clarity and depth of written reasoning are vital. The question remains whether the efficiency gained from AI tools outweighs the potential erosion of the critical thinking skills that underpin judicial decision-making.

Historical artifacts often capture the spirit of legal traditions in ways that digital tools cannot. A recent article from briefcases and cigarettes offers a nostalgic look at the 1978 Law Library, reminding readers of the tangible human element that defined the profession before the digital age. This tangible connection highlights the physical tools that once facilitated the rigorous process of legal scholarship and the deep engagement required to master the law.