Artificial intelligence (AI) is now part of everyday legal work, and clients increasingly ask whether it can do the job of a lawyer. A recent procedural hearing in the Sheriff Court gave a blunt answer. Used behind the scenes, AI can be a genuine help. Used as a stand-in solicitor, it falls apart the moment a Sheriff starts asking questions.
What happened when AI was used in court?
Thorntons’ Dispute Resolution team recently dealt with a procedural motion relating to a minute of amendment against a party litigant who had used AI to prepare his case. When the Sheriff asked him questions, he did not answer them. Instead, he typed each one into an AI agent (which he referred to as his “adviser”) and read the reply aloud.
At one point the AI agent referred to a case that, on the face of it, appeared to support the party litigant. Our solicitor had no notice of it, there was no printed copy before the court, and the Sheriff did not have it either. Because our solicitor knew this area of law and the authorities that surround it, he recognised the case at once, explained what it had really decided, and showed that it gave the litigant no help at all.
Can AI replace a solicitor in court?
The lesson here is not that AI is useless but that an AI agent cannot properly exercise judgement. It will find a plausible-looking case in seconds, but it cannot tell a genuine authority from one that merely shares a few keywords, and it has no feel for the strategy, the atmosphere, or the practical realities of a courtroom. Courts care about accuracy, relevance, and reasoning, not about which answer sounds the most self-assured.
Nor will the court quietly fill the gap. The court will not argue that person’s case for them, nor should it give undue latitude to party litigants who cause delays. In Curran v Sinclair and McIntosh [2026] SAC (Civ) 45, the Sheriff Appeal Court confirmed (albeit in a postscript) that, while a Sheriff should step in to assist and direct a party litigant, undue latitude simply denies swifter access to justice to other litigants. The same is true in simple procedure, which is designed around accessibility, proportionality, and informality, and in which the Sheriff takes a more active role. A hands-on Sheriff still cannot make a weak argument strong or turn an ill-fitting authority into a good one.
Why legal representation and courtroom advocacy matter
Good advocacy is a skill. It is built through training, preparation, and hard-won time on your feet in court, and it does not appear by accident. At Thorntons, we run a dedicated Solicitor Advocate Development Unit through which our solicitors aim to extend their rights of audience and sharpen the skills that decide cases when they are actually argued.
When clients instruct Thorntons, they are not buying access to legal software. They are instructing solicitors and solicitor advocates who prepare the case properly, anticipate the questions before they are asked, and think on their feet when a hearing takes an unexpected turn. That is exactly what the party litigant was missing, and exactly what carried the day.
How Thorntons can help
If you are facing a dispute, or the prospect of court, our Dispute Resolution team at Thorntons is here to help. We combine experienced legal judgement with genuine courtroom skill, and we would far rather argue your case for you than leave you reading answers off a screen and hoping for the best.
