Posted on July 27, 2025 

By Neusomba Long, CFE, CAMS, CRC Principal Advisor, FrAML Global Advisors

Introduction

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools grow more powerful, they are increasingly used across industries once thought immune to automation—including law. From scanning legal documents to generating contracts, AI has delivered impressive efficiency gains.

However, while AI has much to offer, it cannot—and should not—replace the human reasoning at the core of legal practice.

At FrAML Global Advisors, we examine the limitations of AI in legal contexts and highlight why experienced investigators and legal professionals remain indispensable—especially when the stakes involve justice, rights, and due process.

The “Snow in the Picture” Problem

A famous 2016 study revealed a key weakness in AI: a program trained to differentiate wolves from huskies achieved 90% accuracy—but was merely detecting snow in the background of photos (Ribeiro et al., 2016).

It reached the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

This mirrors a crucial limitation of AI in law. Legal reasoning isn’t just about outcomes—it’s about how and why decisions are reached. In courtrooms, due process, fairness, and proper reasoning are just as important as the result. Wrong reasoning can lead to appeals, legal misinterpretations, or lasting harm.

What AI Can—and Can’t—Do

AI adds value in outcome-based legal tasks such as:

* Legal research

* Contract drafting

* Bulk document analysis

* Filing and administrative work

However, more radical proposals suggest that AI could one day draft legal arguments or even adjudicate cases. These ambitions should be approached with caution.

While AI may reach similar conclusions to human lawyers, it does so through correlational logic, not causal reasoning—a fundamental gap in both trust and transparency (Tiemroth, 2024).

The Risks of Black Box Decision-Making

Legal decisions require transparency, especially in high-stakes areas like employment, criminal defense, or regulatory compliance.

If a judge issues the right ruling for the wrong reasons, the entire decision can be overturned—and may set a dangerous precedent.

AI’s internal logic is not only opaque to most legal professionals—it often mimics reasoning after the fact rather than applying genuine legal analysis. It lacks the capacity to:

* Exercise conscience or mercy

* Weigh competing legal philosophies

* Understand nuance in equity or lived experience (Tiemroth, 2024)

Investigators Bring More Than Just Facts

At FrAML Global, our experience confirms that effective legal support depends on more than software. Our professionals—many with backgrounds in law enforcement, financial crime, and compliance—bring:

* Causal analysis, not just data correlation

* An understanding of intent, motive, and misconduct

* Strategic synthesis of facts into persuasive, compliant narratives

In cases involving complex document productions, “document dumps,” or litigation strategy, these insights are not just helpful—they’re decisive.

Conclusion

AI is a powerful tool. But law is not merely an engineering challenge—it is a human endeavor, built on reason, ethics, and trust.

As the legal landscape continues to adopt AI, firms and institutions must remember: technology can assist, but it cannot replace genuine legal thinking.

That’s where FrAML comes in—combining modern tools with seasoned insight to ensure clarity, compliance, and credibility every step of the way.

To explore how strategic legal insights can enhance your business continuity and risk management, reach out at (704) 658-1324 or [email protected], and partner with a team dedicated to intertwining innovation with compliance for your long-term growth. 

Why AI Can’t Replace Genuine Legal Reasoning | LinkedIn