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

Will AI replace legal jobs in New Zealand? The short answer in 2025 is: not entirely, but the landscape is shifting fast. The Government's new AI Strategy and Responsible AI Guidance are nudging firms to adopt AI with governance in mind, while the Law Society's AI Research Project reveals real practitioner anxieties - one librarian even flagged a case an AI tool invented - so accuracy and confidentiality are front‑of‑mind.

Practical experience shows the biggest wins come from targeted use‑cases, strong change management and localised tools (see Thomson Reuters' six lessons on adoption), which means routine review and drafting will be automated but judgement, ethics and client advocacy stay human.

That makes upskilling essential: short, practical courses like the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp - practical AI skills for the workplace teach prompting and workplace AI skills to help NZ lawyers pivot into higher‑value roles.

AI adoption in the legal sector is not a one-time rollout, it's a journey of behavioural change, trust-building and continuous iteration.

In 2025 New Zealand's legal sector looks less like a tech fad and more like a careful, fast-moving upgrade: Thomson Reuters' ROI of Legal Tech & AI shows adoption accelerating - about 65% of firms now have an AI strategy or responsible‑use policy and in‑house teams report even higher maturity - while the Law Society, partnering with LexisNexis, has launched a nationwide AI Research Project to map how lawyers are actually using tools and where the risks lie (including that memorable moment when a librarian was asked to find a case an AI had invented).

Practical adoption lessons from the region stress starting with targeted use‑cases, strong change management and localised legal content, not sweeping firmwide rollouts, and the Government's national AI strategy is creating a clearer environment for firms to invest carefully in governance and upskilling.

The net effect: clearer ROI and quicker workflows for routine tasks, but an urgent need for policies, training and human oversight so judgement, confidentiality and client advocacy remain firmly in human hands.

“We know the profession is grappling with how to adopt AI, and how to manage some of the risks around it.”

AI is reshaping the routine backbone of New Zealand practice: most visibly in e‑discovery where long‑standing tools like Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and newer active‑learning systems now triage mountains of documents so lawyers focus on the 10–20% that matter, a shift the NZ e‑Discovery Blog notes is even reflected in the High Court discovery rules; contract review and due diligence are being accelerated by specialist tools (see Diligen examples), and firms are using Gen‑AI to generate templates, summarise research and triage client enquiries via chatbots - all of which lift efficiency but still require lawyer oversight and QA under the Law Society's guidance.

Conferences like Lawfest underline that active learning can cut review time and cost dramatically for matters big and small, giving smaller firms a competitive edge when models are driven by experienced reviewers.

Practical impact: faster early‑case assessment, far less “page‑turning” for juniors, and clearer ROI - provided procurement, privacy and professional‑responsibility checks are in place.

New Zealand's 2025 approach to AI is deliberately light‑touch and risk‑based, leaning on existing laws rather than new AI‑specific statutes, which means privacy, consumer and competition rules (and Māori data‑sovereignty principles) are front and centre when lawyers assess tools; the Government's AI Strategy and Responsible AI Guidance stress human oversight, record‑keeping and proportionate governance as practical fixes, not theoretical ones (DLA Piper analysis of New Zealand's 2025 AI Strategy and approach).

Practical guidance - think PIAs, transparency checklists and procurement due diligence - comes from the Guidance and industry notes, which warn that platforms vary in Privacy Act 2020 compliance (enterprise options like Copilot and Claude score highly, others less so), so platform choice and data‑residency matter for confidentiality and cross‑border risk (NewZealand.AI analysis of AI platform compliance with the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020).

The ethical red flags are familiar - consent, bias, accuracy and IP - and the most memorable reminder is practical: a librarian was once asked to retrieve a case an AI had simply invented, underscoring that human judgement, PIAs and Māori data safeguards are non‑negotiable (Summary of New Zealand Responsible AI Guidance for businesses (Duncan Cotterill)).

Professional responsibility in 2025 remains the non‑negotiable backbone of practice in New Zealand: lawyers must still act competently and promptly, protect client confidentiality, preserve independence and the administration of justice, and supervise both people and the systems they use - including checking vendor retention policies and privileged‑data safeguards when outsourcing review tools (Lawyers and Conveyancers Act Rules 2008 (New Zealand); Diligen vendor safeguards for legal AI review tools).

The Law Society's guidance on professional standards underlines duties to inform clients, maintain clear files, report misconduct and nominate a designated lawyer to certify compliance each year - a practical safety‑check that keeps firms accountable (Law Society guidance on professional standards (New Zealand)).

Upskilling and documented supervision protect juniors from becoming mere “page‑turners”; robust policies on confidentiality, conflicts and fees translate ethical principles into everyday decisions so machines assist, but lawyers remain responsible.

“The starting point is to conceptualise your function as a lawyer. A lawyer is an adviser, and, as such, stands at one step removed from the client,” said Richard.

New Zealand lawyers should pair technical AI know‑how with timeless human skills: emotional intelligence, active listening, resilience, curiosity and commercial savvy - the “T‑shaped” mix LawFest speakers said separates those who thrive from those who merely become junior “page‑turners.” Practical moves include structured listening and empathy training (to avoid the partner‑and‑junior misfires highlighted in practice write‑ups), deliberate adaptability and digital literacy so AI tools amplify rather than erode client trust, and business‑facing skills so lawyers slot into client operations as trusted advisers.

Short, focused programmes and CPD work well for busy firms: see the LawFest 2025 write‑up for why curiosity and human connection matter, and CCH Learning's on‑demand “10 Essential Soft Skills” webinar for practical, NZ‑relevant courses on resilience, communication and EQ. Invest time in coaching, real‑world roleplays and cross‑functional projects now - the payoff is freed capacity for strategy and advocacy, not less work, and a clearer career path as AI automates routine tasks.

“The pace of change has never been this fast, yet it will never be this slow again”.

Training juniors in New Zealand when AI takes on routine tasks means redesigning apprenticeships so newcomers become “AI‑native” lawyers rather than just faster clerks: firms should pair AI‑enhanced onboarding and personalised learning paths with deliberate manual practice, supervised editing and case‑study roleplays so judgement, client handling and ethical instincts are practised not bypassed; NewZealand.AI shows juniors are already outpacing seniors in adoption and that domain‑specific models and firm‑trained datasets can shrink ramp‑up from months to weeks, while LawFest and Law Society research flag a real risk to succession if training is neglected - the fix is simple but concrete: build sandboxed, proprietary AI tutors, require juniors to validate and annotate AI outputs, keep a program of “handwritten” or supervised assessments to cement legal fundamentals, and insist on procurement and confidentiality rules so client data never feeds public models.

The payoff is faster learning, fewer errors and earlier client contact, turning the classic apprenticeship into a compressed, higher‑value trajectory rather than its replacement; after all, one memorable wake‑up call for the profession was a librarian being asked to retrieve a case an AI had simply invented.

“The most striking discovery is that junior workers are often outpacing their senior colleagues in AI adoption.” - NewZealand.AI

Procurement and governance for AI in New Zealand need to be rigorous but pragmatic: start by convening legal, IT, risk and procurement teams around a clear service specification, then run a documented verification matrix (identity, financials, capacity, insurance, CVs and on‑site checks) as the Government's procurement guide recommends - don't award before you verify the basics (New Zealand Government guide to conducting due diligence checks for procurement).

For cloud and AI platforms, use a standardised checklist so comparisons are consistent; Microsoft's Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist maps clause‑by‑clause to ISO/IEC 19086 and helps turn high‑level goals into negotiable SLAs and controls (Microsoft Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist (ISO/IEC 19086 mapping)).

Treat cyber and operational risk as first‑class items: ask for CAIQs, incident history, data‑residency, retention and exit plans, and tier vendors by criticality so higher‑risk suppliers get deeper scrutiny; third‑party incidents are common, so continuous monitoring, security ratings and automation make diligence sustainable rather than theatrical (Venminder guidance on due diligence for cloud vendors).

The memorable test: if a supplier can't show how client data is isolated, backed up and expunged on exit, they shouldn't get access to it - period.

AI is fast nudging New Zealand firms away from pure time‑based billing and toward alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) - fixed, blended, capped and retainer models that give clients predictability while letting firms showcase value if they get the pricing design right; Thomson Reuters primer on alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) stresses a coherent pricing strategy and careful profitability tracking so fixed fees don't become loss‑leaders.

The practical sweet spot in 2025 is hybrid pricing: charge flat fees for repeatable, AI‑assisted work and retain hourly or value‑based billing for strategic advice, a move backed by the Wolters Kluwer guide on making AFAs work for everyone (efficiency, predictability, cost savings and aligned relationships).

But watch for overcomplication - Wolters Kluwer warns that onerous reporting can kill AFA efficiency - so pair AFAs with AI‑driven scoping, forecasting and matter analytics (LexisNexis notes AI's role in faster delivery and pricing shifts) and remember the vivid test: the clock is ticking on the billable hour, so use data and clear client conversations to turn AI gains into sustainable, profitable pricing.

Keep a close watch on a trio of practical, NZ‑relevant moves in 2025: LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI - positioned as the flagship legal generative tool with Protégé™ for conversational search, drafting, summarising and document analysis - is landing mid‑2025 and (hosted from Sydney) pitches privacy‑by‑design and a private multi‑model approach that aims to make research and first‑drafts far faster (LexisNexis Lexis+ AI legal research platform); specialist products that accelerate contract review and due diligence (think Diligen‑style workflows) will keep smaller teams competitive while demanding careful vendor checks (Diligen contract review and due diligence tool); and practical upskilling resources - copyable prompt templates and NZ‑focused prompting frameworks - help firms trial safely and get juniors productive fast (NZ lawyer copyable AI prompt templates and prompting frameworks).

The takeaway: invest in responsibly governed platforms, niche tools, and hands‑on prompts - together they act like a turbocharged legal library on every lawyer's desktop, but only if paired with oversight and provenance checks.

Practical and urgent: a 10‑point action plan for New Zealand lawyers and firms in 2025 starts by clarifying your AI purpose and risk appetite, adopting the Government's Responsible AI Guidance as a baseline (MBIE Responsible AI Guidance), then focusing on targeted, high‑impact use‑cases rather than firm‑wide rollouts (Thomson Reuters' six lessons show targeted pilots win fast trust).

Next, build simple governance - PIAs, vendor checklists and SLA clauses - so procurement is rigorous but pragmatic; demand data‑residency, retention and exit plans from suppliers; and pair vendor partnerships with localised legal content to earn client trust.

Invest in hands‑on upskilling and regional workshops (Law Society + LexisNexis sessions are a great model), redesign junior training with sandboxes and supervised validation, and rework pricing toward hybrid AFAs backed by matter analytics.

Measure ROI in service quality and risk reduction, not just hours saved, and iterate: start small, share wins, scale responsibly. The memorable test: if AI ever asks your librarian to fetch a case it invented, stop and verify - human oversight remains the safety net that protects clients and reputations.

“To businesses considering AI adoption: the Government stands ready to support your journey through guidance and stable policy settings that reward innovation.”

For practical NZ help, start with the New Zealand Law Society AI and Law 2025 hub - listen to the recorded “AI and Law 2025” webinar (released 26 June) and sign up for the nationwide, hands‑on workshops delivered in partnership with LexisNexis that cover ethics, procurement, sandboxing and real tool demos; details and registration are on the New Zealand Law Society AI and Law 2025 hub and the LexisNexis New Zealand AI training workshops listing (workshops run July–August 2025).

These sessions are designed to move firms from worry to workable steps - remember the wake‑up call when a librarian was asked to find a case an AI had invented? - so prioritise the webinar, a local workshop, and the practical toolkits and prompt templates LexisNexis and the Law Society are sharing to help teams trial safely and benchmark adoption across Aotearoa.

“We know the profession is grappling with how to adopt AI, and how to manage some of the risks around it.” - Amanda Woodbridge, New Zealand Law Society

Conclusion: AI won't wipe out legal jobs across Aotearoa, but it will redraw the map - and New Zealand lawyers who treat it as a force multiplier will thrive. Evidence from local research and industry reports shows rapid adoption and big productivity gains (one NZ study found 82% of organisations now use AI and 93% report improved efficiency, while only about 7% reported direct job losses), yet the practical fallout is real: routine drafting, document review and chronologies are now far faster and some traditional junior roles are shrinking, creating a genuine succession risk lawyers must fix locally.

The Law Society's AI Research Project 2025 is the profession's roadmap for safe, evidence‑based adoption, and market tools like LexisNexis' new platforms are shifting the baseline for competent practice - so the smart response is clear: pair governance and vendor due diligence with focused upskilling and redesigned apprenticeships so juniors become AI‑native reviewers and supervisors.

Short, practical courses - such as the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp - teach prompting, tool use and workplace integration to help legal teams retain judgment and client trust while capturing efficiency gains; the memorable test remains the same: when an AI invents a case, stop, verify and let human expertise lead the next step.

“AI is a very powerful multi-tool in your legal toolbox - learn how to use it, pick it up and put it to work.” - Chris Patterson