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

Will AI replace legal jobs in Malta in 2025? The short answer: not wholesale, but legal roles are already changing fast - Malta's 2019 national AI strategy, the MDIA's funding (a €125,000 MDIA research grant that has helped distribute €284,217 to nine projects) and pilot projects from driverless-bus tests to water‑management AI make the islands a busy testbed for systems that “strain” traditional law, as Global Legal Insights warns; see Global Legal Insights: AI, Machine Learning & Big Data Laws 2025 – Malta.

At the same time, the IMF found Malta slightly less exposed to mass job displacement, meaning many Maltese lawyers will be asked to supervise, audit and adapt AI rather than be replaced outright - skills that practical training can accelerate.

For lawyers looking to upskill quickly, the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp offers workplace-focused prompt and tool training; and for evidence on labour risks read the IMF study: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Malta's Labor Market.

“Legal norms will persistently be strained as AI becomes increasingly complex and adept at completing ‘life‑like' tasks when utilising machine learning.”

Malta's legal scene is already shifting from theory to practice: AI tools are automating document review and speeding research, regulators are updating frameworks, and public pilots are forcing courts and firms to rethink liability and ethics.

The Malta national AI strategy and MDIA initiatives have seeded research and certification schemes that aim to turn the islands into an AI testbed, while concrete projects - from autonomous‑vehicle feasibility studies and delayed driverless‑bus tests to Energy & Water Agency pilots that use AI to predict water supplies - are pushing lawmakers to close gaps on tort, IP and data protection (see the Malta national AI strategy report (EU AI Watch) and MDIA grant history).

At the same time, lawyers worldwide report heavy use of AI for research, review and summarisation, a trend Malta's profession can't ignore (see Thomson Reuters 2025 report on AI transforming the legal profession), and expert chapters flag how existing norms will be strained as complex systems spread (Global Legal Insights: AI, machine learning and big data laws and regulations in Malta).

The result is a fast‑moving mix of opportunity and legal questions - remember the Mater Dei robot that processed 800 COVID tests a day - so Maltese practitioners must pair new tooling with tighter oversight and targeted upskilling to keep pace.

“Legal norms will persistently be strained as AI becomes increasingly complex and adept at completing ‘life‑like' tasks when utilising machine learning.”

Which legal tasks in Malta are most exposed to automation? The short list reads like the familiar toolkit of any Maltese firm: drafting and document automation (helpful given studies showing lawyers without automation can spend up to 56% of their time drafting), high‑volume document review and e‑discovery, contract analysis and comparison, due diligence, summarisation and automated redaction, plus routine compliance checks - all areas where AI's speed and consistency deliver clear gains.

Practical reports show firms cutting review time dramatically and reducing human error (some vendors and case studies report time savings around 30% and error reductions up to 40%), while AI platforms surface key clauses and prioritise documents so lawyers focus on judgement not sifting.

Local practitioners should therefore prioritise pilots that replace repetitive drafting and review workflows with well‑governed tools, pair outputs with human validation, and reassign junior capacity to higher‑value research and client advice.

For background reading, see the Thomson Reuters article on legal document automation, the Exterro analysis of AI in document review, and the Fairfax overview of generative AI for law firms.

“Generative AI technologies such as Chat GPT have the potential to significantly impact the practice of large law firms in a number of ways.”

Malta's hiring market already makes clear which roles AI will amplify: law firms and service providers are advertising dozens of legal‑technology vacancies (see the Malta legal technology jobs listings on Malta legal technology jobs on Careerjet), and demand is strongest for tech‑savvy juniors and mid‑level counsel who can translate regulation into product and process - for example a Junior Legal – Tech role listed at €24,000–€26,000 that pairs regulatory research with hands‑on tech work (Junior Legal – Tech job listing on JobsInMalta), while senior tech counsel positions advertise €35,000–€50,000 and up as they lead cross‑border compliance and mentor teams (Legal Counsel job listings on Konnekt).

Expect new and expanded titles across Malta: legal technologist/legal engineer, compliance & AML specialists fluent in DORA/MiCA, data analysts embedded in legal teams, and senior counsel who vet AI outputs - a clear career ladder where technical fluency and regulatory expertise command a measurable salary premium and shift routine drafting into higher‑value advisory work.

Malta's regulatory map is now a dense overlay of EU rules and local enablers: the EU AI Act - now in force - sets a graduated, risk‑based regime with fines that can reach tens of millions of euros, and Maltese authorities are busy knitting this into existing GDPR, DORA, NIS2 and sectoral rules so that AI in finance, gaming, health and transport faces both horizontal and industry‑specific guardrails.

The Malta Digital Innovation Authority (MDIA) is front and centre, expanding its early national certification and sandbox programmes to lead implementation and encourage safe innovation, while the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC) has been given a pivotal oversight role on data and fundamental‑rights aspects.

Practitioners must therefore map each system's EU risk tier to overlapping obligations - data minimisation and Article 22 rights under the GDPR, MFSA guidance on ICT and outsourcing, and sectoral conformity checks for high‑risk medical or safety‑critical AI - and reflect those duties into procurement and governance clauses.

For a clear primer on the Act see the EU AI Act overview (Ganado Advocates) and for a Malta‑specific playbook consult the Malta practice guide (Global Practice Guides), because the regulator's sandbox can be the safest place to trial systems before exposure to steep penalties.

“Legal norms will persistently be strained as AI becomes increasingly complex and adept at completing ‘life‑like' tasks when utilising machine learning.”

Malta's lawyers must treat ethics and privacy as frontline practice risks when using AI: EU rules mean Article 22 GDPR bars decisions “based solely on automated processing” that produce legal or similarly significant effects, so any tool that screens clients, grades claims or triages cases needs meaningful human intervention, transparency, and a DPIA rather than a shrug (see Article 22 GDPR legal text on automated decision‑making).

Practical guidance stresses profiling and automated decision‑making controls - human review, documentation of logic, and bias testing - to prevent discrimination in credit, recruitment or healthcare workflows and to preserve client rights (read the GDPR automated decision‑making overview and implementation steps).

There's also a real tension between a client's right to understand algorithmic outcomes and firms' IP or trade‑secret protections: academic analyses flag that “right to an explanation” debates keep courts and regulators busy, so lawyers should insist on contractual audit rights, robust logging, and technical safeguards (model validation, access controls, bias audits) before deploying tools that touch personal data; otherwise a single unchecked model can transform a routine task into an ethical and regulatory crisis for a Maltese practice.

“The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal ...”

Liability, procurement and contracting for AI in Malta hinge on a simple - but critical - legal reality: there is no standalone Maltese regime for non‑contractual AI liability, so traditional tort and contract law fill the gaps and the deployer or developer usually wears the risk; see the Malta chapter in Global Legal Insights for the authoritative overview (Global Legal Insights: AI, Machine Learning & Big Data Laws 2025 - Malta).

Practically this means procurement must do heavy lifting: contracts should map AI Act risk tiers and sectoral duties (DORA/MFSA where relevant), push obligations back‑to‑back to suppliers, require warranties on data provenance and model training, carve in audit and access rights, logging and explainability clauses, and preserve human‑in‑the‑loop controls - steps the Maltese practice guides recommend when aligning commercial deals with the EU framework (Chambers Practice Guide - Malta: Artificial Intelligence 2025 (Ganado)).

Don't rely on siloed vendor promises: the new EU product liability direction and AI Act mean insurers, counsel and in‑house teams must test systems in sandboxes and insist on contractual remedies up front, or else a mysterious “black box” failure could leave a firm legally exposed and without a clear defendant.

“Every person…shall be liable for the damage which occurs through his fault.”

Practical checklist for Maltese lawyers in 2025: start with an AI inventory and classify every tool you use - internal or third‑party - against the EU AI Act risk tiers, because identifying whether a system is “high‑risk” or a GPAI determines immediate duties and timelines (see the EU AI Act guide - Bloomberg Law); next, run DPIAs and document human‑in‑the‑loop controls for anything that touches personal data or could produce legal effects (Article 22 risks remain live); harden procurement: insist on back‑to‑back warranties, data provenance, audit and explainability clauses, and logged outputs so a deployer can rely on supplier remedies if something goes wrong (Malta contract playbook - Chambers/Ganado practice guide).

Use the MDIA's certification pathways and technology sandboxes to trial systems safely, align with MFSA sector guidance (Malta Financial Services Authority) and MGA sector guidance (Malta Gaming Authority) where relevant, and build role‑specific AI literacy training for partners, juniors and compliance officers (the AI Act expects demonstrable staff competence).

Finally, protect privilege - never input privileged client material into generative models - and treat model documentation like evidence: if it isn't recorded, it won't withstand scrutiny.

Think of governance like a notarised register for every algorithm you rely on - clear, dated, and auditable, so a sudden “black‑box” failure won't become a career‑ending surprise.

“Legal norms will persistently be strained as AI becomes increasingly complex and adept at completing “life‑like” tasks when utilising machine learning.”

Funding and sandbox routes in Malta now make a practical pathway for legal teams that want to pilot AI safely: the Malta Digital Innovation Authority's Applied Research Grant (MARG) has already funded nine projects across cultural‑tourism, healthcare explainability and Maltese‑language corpora with awards ranging from about €23k (AiGaDe) to €40k (Smart Valletta, AIMS‑Lab), showing how modest pilots can seed real capability - see the MDIA Applied Research Grant page for details.

For larger, longer R&D, the Digital Technologies Programme 2025 offers up to €200,000 for 24‑month projects and explicitly allows Maltese registered entities (public, private and academic) to apply, making it a viable route for firm–university consortia that want to build compliant, explainable tools.

The grant schemes emphasise capacity building, ethical AI and digital trust (OECD captures the programme aims), and several awards already include education and training strands such as wE‑THRIVE and the AIMS‑Lab media studio - concrete examples of how funding can underwrite both technical build and the human skills needed to manage AI in practice.

In short: AI in Malta is a catalyst, not an executioner - lawyers will keep the judgment calls while routine drafting, review and screening are increasingly automated, so the smart play is governance plus upskilling.

Map every tool to the EU AI Act risk tiers, run DPIAs where personal data is involved, lock procurement with back‑to‑back warranties and audit rights, and use MDIA sandboxes and sector guidance to test systems before they touch clients (see the Artificial Intelligence 2025: Malta practice guide - Ganado / Chambers for a full regulatory playbook: Artificial Intelligence 2025: Malta - Ganado / Chambers); reinforce human‑in‑the‑loop controls to avoid the “black‑box” career‑ending surprise and follow practical adoption trends and ROI benchmarks in the Thomson Reuters briefing on AI in the profession (How AI Is Transforming the Legal Profession - Thomson Reuters).

For lawyers who need fast, applied skills to supervise, prompt and validate AI outputs, short practical training such as Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work can close the gap quickly (AI Essentials for Work bootcamp - registration) - think of governance as a notarised register for your models and training as the single best insurance against regulatory and ethical missteps.