AI Adoption Is Moving Faster Than Legal Reflection

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into everyday legal practice. Yet the discussion with leading Legal Practitioner Mladen Vukmir, an intellectual property and technology Founding Partner of VUKMIR + Associaties based in Zagreb, Croatia, highlighted a growing imbalance: lawyers are adopting AI tools quickly, but the profession is not reflecting deeply enough on their broader implications.

Vukmir, whose career spans intellectual property, technology law, and experience in Silicon Valley during the early days of the digital economy, noted that AI has already become a regular part of professional life. Many lawyers increasingly rely on AI platforms for research, drafting, and information gathering, sometimes replacing traditional search engines entirely.

Despite this rapid adoption, Vukmir argued that the profession often approaches AI in a narrow, technical way. Lawyers focus on efficiency and productivity gains while paying less attention to how these technologies may reshape the legal system itself.

According to Vukmir, this lack of broader reflection represents a significant weakness in the legal profession.

A Profession Focused on Output Rather Than Impact

One of the central themes of the session was the way lawyers are trained to prioritise outcomes for clients above all else. While this focus is understandable, Vukmir suggested it can limit the profession’s ability to engage with bigger societal changes.

Lawyers tend to concentrate on delivering results under pressure, drafting documents, providing advice, and resolving disputes. What they are less frequently trained to do is consider how technological transformation may influence the role of law in society.

In Vukmir’s view, this presents a risk. Modern societies increasingly require professionals who can interpret technological change and provide guidance. If lawyers do not engage with these wider issues, their strategic influence may diminish over time.

Legal education, he suggested, has not yet fully adapted to this shift. Traditional legal training emphasises rules, structure and stability. Yet the AI era requires a more creative and adaptable mindset.

AI as Both Tool and Opportunity

While the discussion raised significant concerns about the long-term implications of AI, Vukmir also acknowledged the immediate advantages these technologies bring to legal work.

Within his own firm, AI tools are already helping to organise decades of legal documentation and support routine drafting tasks. Activities that once took significant time such as preparing disclaimers, structuring documents or generating initial drafts can now be completed within seconds.

These developments remove a large amount of administrative work from lawyers’ daily routines. Rather than spending hours producing basic legal text, lawyers can increasingly focus on more complex tasks such as strategy, negotiation and client relationships.

This shift may allow the profession to return to some of its core strengths: advising clients, designing outcomes, and building long-term professional trust.

Disruption in the Legal Information Market

Another key theme of the session was the impact AI may have on the traditional legal information ecosystem.

Specialised legal databases and research providers have historically dominated the market for legal information. However, AI systems capable of analysing large volumes of legal content could significantly disrupt this model.

Vukmir suggested that AI platforms integrating specialised legal tools could create new forms of competition for established legal information providers. Systems capable of analysing complex legal materials instantly may reduce the reliance on traditional research workflows.

In the longer term, it is possible that machines will increasingly interact with other machines to retrieve and process legal information, with minimal human intervention.

If this trend continues, the role of the lawyer will likely shift further towards judgment, interpretation, and strategic decision-making.

Copyright Law Under Significant Pressure

The session’s central topic focused on copyright law and the challenges posed by AI training models.

Vukmir presented a striking perspective. As someone who has worked extensively in copyright law, he argued that the current copyright framework may struggle to survive the AI era in its existing form.

Modern copyright systems were designed more than a century ago to protect artistic and scientific works. Over time, they expanded to cover the entertainment industries and eventually software. According to Vukmir, these expansions have already stretched the system considerably.

AI training models introduce an additional level of complexity. Large datasets, often drawn from vast digital archives, are used to train these systems. This raises difficult questions about ownership, attribution, and compensation.

Rather than focusing solely on individual legal cases, Vukmir suggested that it is more useful to observe broader legal trends. Courts appear increasingly open to allowing AI training processes some flexibility within existing copyright frameworks.

The more pressing question, he argued, concerns how the economic value generated by AI will ultimately be distributed.

The Need for New Approaches

If AI systems create enormous economic value, as many analysts predict, societies will need mechanisms to ensure that value is shared fairly.

Technology companies may generate significant revenues from AI systems trained on vast collections of human-created material. Without meaningful systems of compensation or redistribution, public pressure on the technology sector could intensify.

Vukmir suggested that the challenge extends beyond traditional legal doctrine. Existing legal frameworks alone may not provide sufficient answers to the questions raised by AI.

Instead, lawyers will need to engage with broader ethical, social, and economic considerations when shaping future legal frameworks.

From Fear to Curiosity

The session concluded with practical reflections for lawyers navigating this rapidly changing environment.

Fear of technological disruption is understandable. However, Vukmir emphasised that curiosity and experimentation are far more productive responses.

Lawyers who actively explore these tools and participate in shaping their use will be better positioned to influence the profession’s future. Those who remain passive risk being left behind.

Ultimately, the transformation brought about by AI may present not only challenges, but also opportunities for lawyers to redefine their role in society.

The key shift, Vukmir suggested, is moving from fear to engagement and recognising that shaping the future of law can be both intellectually rewarding and professionally meaningful.