Automate the tasks, elevate leaders: The case for human-centered AI
By Afshaan Jiwaji, Co-Founder and Counsel, Jiwaji Law
Artificial intelligence is framed as a race for efficiency. But the real question is not how much we can automate. It is what we choose to make space for. Many leaders are shifting the focus from automation for productivity's sake to automation in service of people.
At its best, AI absorbs layers of work such as reporting, documentation, scheduling, and data synthesis. In our law firm, we have adopted AI-assisted research and drafting tools to streamline first-pass tasks, such as contract review and drafting. What once took hours of junior-level drafting can now be done in minutes. The impact has been immediate. Turnaround times are shorter, clients receive faster insights, and our team spends less time on repetitive administrative work.
Across the profession, that same pattern is emerging in concrete, firm-level deployments. In Canada, Gowling WLG announced an enterprise-wide rollout of Harvey across its Canadian offices and practice areas as a tool to support research, analysis, and drafting at scale. Latham & Watkins has signed an enterprise license to deploy Harvey firmwide, making it available for research, document analysis, drafting, and related workflows.
As AI increasingly performs tasks traditionally assigned to articling students and junior associates, we must ask: if early-career work changes, how do we preserve mentorship, leadership development, and training?
The legal profession has long relied on apprenticeship. Young lawyers learn not only by doing the work, but by observing judgment, ethics, and client relationships in action. If AI replaces tasks without redesigning mentorship structures, we risk hollowing out the leadership pipeline.
Responsible AI adoption requires intention. It means using technology to enhance learning, not shortcut it. It means freeing senior lawyers from administrative burdens so they can spend more time coaching and guiding the next generation. It also means being explicit about what AI can draft versus what a lawyer must decide, so junior lawyers still build the muscle of issue-spotting, strategy, and client counsel.
It also requires guardrails.
Without clear legal frameworks, efficiency can erode equity. Algorithms can embed bias. Employee data can be misused. Automated systems can influence hiring, evaluation, and advancement decisions without transparency. Legal frameworks create accountability and trust. They clarify how AI can be used, how data is protected, and where human judgment must remain central. Governance should not be reactive; it must evolve alongside the technology, with clear policies, audit mechanisms, and ethical oversight embedded into firm culture.
If we automate the mechanical and safeguard what matters, AI becomes more than a productivity tool. It becomes an opportunity to redefine work in ways that strengthen mentorship, deepen collaboration, and keep leadership development at the core.
Done responsibly, AI should not replace humanity. It should make space for it.
If we automate the mechanical and safeguard what matters, AI becomes more than a productivity tool. It becomes an opportunity to redefine work in ways that strengthen mentorship, deepen collaboration and keep leadership development at the core. It can free up time for strategic thinking, thoughtful decision making and meaningful conversations that often get sidelined in busy environments these days.
When done responsibly, AI should not replace humanity. It should make space for it, while reinforcing accountability, empathy and the human judgment that drives lasting progress.
