Will AI Replace Legal Jobs in Belgium? Here’s What to Do in 2025

Belgian legal jobs in 2025 will be shaped by rapid, uneven AI uptake: company use rose from 13.81% in 2023 to 24.71% in 2024 and is expected to climb further, a change already visible in more automated contract analysis and process automation (see Belgium AI adoption data).

Still, most firms are experimenting - 76% report pilots but only 21% have fully integrated AI into daily work - so roles are more likely to shift toward oversight, risk management and hybrid workflows than vanish overnight (read PwC's guidance on navigating AI adoption in Belgium).

Layered on this is a trust and regional gap - Brussels, Wallonia and Flanders show different adoption and confidence levels - that legal teams must factor into compliance, training and client communication strategies (Deloitte's Belgian generative AI findings).

AI is already reshaping everyday legal work in Belgium: firms and in-house teams use machine learning for classification, speech‑to‑text, contract drafting and playbook‑based contract review, while GenAI boosts regulatory monitoring and predictive analytics for risk assessment, turning slow searches into instant case‑law snapshots (see the Belgian legal state of play and Deloitte's playbook for GenAI in legal functions).

The practical payoff is tangible - independent studies report big productivity gains (paralegals can reclaim roughly 50% of admin time and law departments report rapid ROI), so Belgian teams face a clear choice between pilot projects and strategic rollout.

But the shift isn't just technical: data protection, confidentiality and liability remain front and centre under GDPR and Belgium's evolving guidance, so safe adoption means combining human oversight, playbooks and vendor due diligence rather than blind automation.

Expect day‑to‑day work to evolve into reviewing AI outputs, tuning models and managing compliance - a hybrid choreography where lawyers add judgment to speed, and Belgian legal tech scale‑ups supply the tools to make it happen.

“‘Set it and forget it' might be a great infomercial tagline, but unfortunately, it's never really applied to AI technology.”

Belgian legal teams should be pragmatic: routine, high‑volume process work is most at risk from automation - tasks like bulk contract drafting and NDAs, repetitive contract review, standardised due diligence, transcription and simple legal research can be sped up or pushed into self‑service flows (see practical examples in Juro guide to legal automation).

By contrast, high‑judgment work remains comparatively safe: courtroom advocacy, nuanced advisory work, strategic negotiations, complex regulatory interpretation and bespoke drafting still need human calibration and client-facing trust.

The EU AI Act reshuffles the risk map for Belgium too: uses tied to employment, justice or automated worker management attract “high‑risk” rules or outright prohibitions (for example, emotion recognition in the workplace), so firms can't simply automate away oversight without new compliance burdens (read the Belgium briefing on the EU AI Act).

The sensible path for 2025 is surgical automation - automate repetitive bottlenecks (if “you're signing dozens of contracts a week” it pays off) while doubling down on governance, human review and role‑specific AI literacy so speed gains don't become regulatory speed traps.

“'Set it and forget it' might be a great infomercial tagline, but unfortunately, it's never really applied to AI technology.”

Begin the 90‑day sprint with practical, Belgium‑specific moves: days 0–30 run a rapid document and risk audit (identify repetitive tasks worth automating and map GDPR/data flows), confirm travel and short‑stay rules for any external experts (Schengen 90/180 rules and CETA exemptions are crucial - see the Canadian‑Belgian CETA short‑term entry guidance), and lock down subcontractor checks to meet the new Flemish chain‑liability rules (collect passports, work permits/professional cards, Dimona evidence).

Days 30–60 pilot a single, high‑value use case (contract triage or NDA batching), combine vendor due‑diligence with a clear human‑review playbook and KPIs, and start role‑based training and onboarding processes (EOR and remote hire steps can speed hires and payroll setup).

Days 60–90 evaluate results, scale what saved time without raising compliance flags, update contracts and procurement clauses for chain liability, and publish an “AI use” register for audits.

Practical wins: a two‑week pilot can turn a day of manual review into an afternoon coffee run for one lawyer - but only if governance, immigration/work‑permit checks and onboarding are handled up front.

For a compact starting kit, see Nucamp's pilot checklist for AI adoption, the CETA short‑term entry guidance, and the Flemish subcontractor data checklist.

Resources: Nucamp AI Essentials for Work pilot checklist and syllabus, Canadian‑Belgian CETA short‑term entry guidance, Flemish subcontractor documentation and employer obligations guidance

Upskilling in Belgium must be practical, role‑specific and documented: with Article 4 of the EU AI Act in force from 2 February 2025, firms need a layered programme that gives every lawyer the baseline to understand risks and a clear escalation path for high‑risk systems, while specialists get deeper, hands‑on sessions for vendor oversight, model validation and GDPR intersections (see VAIA's AI literacy explainer).

Start with a quick skills audit, map who uses or oversees AI, then deploy a mix of short awareness modules and targeted workshops so paralegals, counsels and partners each get the right depth - the European AI Office recommends combining general awareness with company‑specific training and keeping records to show compliance ahead of enforcement timelines in August 2025 (see the AI literacy programs repository).

Talent strategy should pair training with incentives: hire or rotate in staff who can bridge legal, data and procurement, and run two‑week pilots tied to measurable KPIs so learning is practice‑oriented.

A vivid test of readiness: if a lawyer can flag an AI “hallucination” as fast as spotting a rogue clause on page 27, the team is on the right track - for a compact starter kit, see Nucamp's pilot checklist for Belgian compliance and KPIs.

“Being AI literate” is essential alongside traditional literacy skills.

Governance and compliance matter now more than ever for Belgian legal teams: the EU AI Act creates a risk‑based rulebook that bans unacceptable practices, imposes strict obligations on high‑risk systems and brings GPAI rules and transparency duties into play, so Belgian firms must map who is provider, who is deployer, and where human oversight, logging and documentation live in each workflow (see the EU AI Act overview).

Belgium's national rollout is still a work in progress - national implementation trackers flag Belgium as “unclear” on formal authority designation while the federal administration has set up an Ethics Advisory Committee - so law firms and in‑house teams should be watching the national implementation plans and preparing to engage with market surveillance authorities once named (see the national implementation plans).

Practical steps for 2025: treat AI literacy and the February 2, 2025 prohibitions as operational mandates, register and risk‑assess any high‑risk tooling, keep activity logs and technical documentation ready for inspection, and use the transitional windows for GPAI carefully while monitoring enforcement guidance from the European AI Office; remember non‑compliance can attract significant fines, including percentages of worldwide turnover.

Think of governance as adding a transparent ledger to every AI workflow - a quick audit trail that turns speed into defensible, client‑safe practice.

“Any organization using AI should have governance that involves the whole business - not just legal or compliance teams.”

Belgian law firms and in‑house teams should redesign services and pricing around measurable client value rather than simply shaving hours: treat GenAI as a way to deliver higher‑quality, faster advice (top European firms call this “adding value” in early projects) and bake that improvement into alternative fee arrangements, not just lower hourly rates - see lessons from the European GenAI wave Global Legal Post: Gen AI Is About Adding Value - Lessons from Top European Firms.

Practical moves for Belgium include tracking AI‑driven gains (partners can reclaim roughly 2–2.5 hours/week on drafting and analysis per recent studies), using that data to offer tiered or outcome‑based fees, and insisting on transparency about AI use in RFPs so procurement can validate benefits (see the LexisNexis profitability analysis).

Embed clear automation metrics into AFAs - cycle time, AI‑assist penetration, quality delta and cost‑per‑outcome - so clients see verified value and firms protect margins while unlocking new client segments via fixed‑fee or subscription offerings (a pragmatic framework is summarised in Fennemore's AI‑ready billing guidance).

“Rates are still set by markets, not machines.”

When choosing tools and vendors in Belgium, evaluate legal‑specific platforms first: look for enterprise security, multilingual contract analysis and integrations with your CLM/DMS so cross‑border files (French, Dutch, German) stay accurate and auditable - Harvey, for example, touts rapid, citation‑ready research, domain‑specific models and Azure deployment for enterprise security, plus document vaults and agentic workflows that turn tasks “into seconds” rather than hours (Harvey AI enterprise legal research and document automation).

Prioritise vendors that can ingest firm templates, produce verifiable citations (the LexisNexis alliance with Harvey aims to surface authoritative, hyperlinked answers) and explicitly avoid training on client data to protect privilege and GDPR obligations (LexisNexis and Harvey legal AI partnership details).

Start with a tight pilot - contract triage or NDA batching - measure cycle‑time, error rates and audit logs, then demand white‑glove onboarding, clear human‑review playbooks and vendor SLAs; for a local starting kit, pair these vendor checks with a compact pilot checklist to keep Belgian compliance front and centre (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus).

A good pilot proves value quickly and gives procurement the evidence to scale safely.

“Generative AI will be the biggest game-changer for advisory services for a generation. We wanted to position ourselves to capitalize on this opportunity and lead in the tax, legal, and HR space.” - Bivek Sharma, Chief AI Officer, PwC UK and AI Leader, EMEA

The biggest near‑term risk for Belgian legal employers is regulatory and people‑risk, not an immediate mass layoff: AI can automate routine drafting and triage, but misconfigurations, opaque GPAI use or improper vendor deals can trigger GDPR blowbacks, collective redress and AI Act fines (up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover) if high‑risk or prohibited uses slip through (see the Act Legal Belgium Trustworthy AI briefing).

Mitigations are practical and immediate: map deployer/provider roles, run DPIAs and red‑team tests, keep activity logs and human‑in‑the‑loop checkpoints, document training and vendor SLAs, and formalise employee consultation where required (Belgian works‑council rules such as CLA No.39 apply to larger employers).

Payroll, hiring and monitoring policies must be revised alongside role‑based AI literacy and a visible incident‑response plan so a single mis‑prompt or monitoring tool doesn't cascade into fines plus reputational damage - for workplace‑specific steps and vendor controls, consult the Timelex employer guide to AI in the workplace and Osborne Clarke data protection practice notes to align GDPR and AI Act obligations.

Conclusion: Belgian lawyers and legal teams should treat 2025 as the moment to move from nervous piloting to disciplined operationalisation: identify who is provider versus deployer, run DPIAs and red‑team tests on high‑impact uses, update contracts and IP clauses, and formalise clear AI policies that require human review and works‑council consultation under Belgium's CBA No.39; practical guidance on workplace risks and employer obligations is usefully summarised by Osborne Clarke's briefing on generative AI in Belgium (Osborne Clarke briefing on generative AI in the Belgian workplace).

Don't wait for final EU standards or a possible pause in the AI Act timeline - prepare now for the prohibitions and AI literacy obligations in force from 2 February 2025 and the phased GPAI/high‑risk rules to follow - Act Legal's Belgium overview explains the risk categories and the stakes, including maximum fines (up to €35 million or 7% of turnover) (Act Legal overview of Trustworthy AI in Belgium and enforcement risks).

Start with a tight, measurable pilot (contract triage or NDA batching), document logs and SLA controls, and pair those pilots with role‑based training such as the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus so lawyers can spot hallucinations, enforce oversight and turn efficiency gains into defensible client value (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp – AI skills for the workplace); a two‑week pilot should prove whether speed becomes a business advantage or a compliance problem.