Table of contents
In the international debate, artificial intelligence is often portrayed as a force set to radically transform the legal and tax professions. In the Italian context, however, the change appears to be more gradual: not a replacement of professionals, but an evolution of tools and working methods. Nevertheless, things are taking shape rapidly, and we cannot limit ourselves to just a few factors to consider.
Over the past year, we have seen a surge in the number of start-ups developing AI tools for the legal and tax sectors. In particular, start-ups operating at the intersection of law, taxation and AI in the Italian market have focused on improving efficiency rather than on disintermediation.
The most widely used solutions today include: contract analysis and review; the review of large volumes of documents, including the drafting of reports, memos, etc. (e.g. DD); document automation; compliance support; the management of complex tax data; and the assisted drafting of legal opinions, pleadings and documents, using tools capable of searching for regulatory sources and case law.
To offer these solutions, many legal tech start-ups have built intermediate layers on top of the base models (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.).
The latest global trend in the sector sees some large law firms changing their strategy and developing their own artificial intelligence tools in-house, rather than relying on traditional legal software providers. This marks a seismic shift: today, the underlying models have become so advanced that this intermediate step is no longer as necessary.
Consequently, the focus is no longer on simple tools that read contracts or summarise documents, but on increasingly complex systems that manage entire processes and monitor the quality of the results.
In short, the value no longer lies in ‘doing a single task better’ but in coordinating AI and ensuring its reliability. Indeed, those who offer only simple functions risk being overtaken directly by the underlying technology.
A redefinition of the professional role
However, none of the above can be considered without taking into account important considerations regarding the specific role of lawyers in the use and management of AI.
Taking one of the most widely used tools, so-called ‘assisted drafting’, as an example, the following initial considerations arise: the ability to generate structured drafts saves time, but requires rigorous professional oversight.
Italian law firms are certainly showing interest today, but at the same time they are adopting a cautious approach. The use of AI does not therefore diminish professional liability, as the practitioner remains ultimately responsible for the work carried out; for this reason, AI is used primarily as an internal support tool.
The main issues also concern professional liability, the distinction between providing information and offering advice, and data management and professional confidentiality.
The European framework (not least in light of the AI Act) requires transparency, human oversight and traceability; consequently, the most significant impact of AI is the redefinition of the professional’s role.
In fact, if standardisable tasks were to be automated, the focus would shift towards interpretation and judgement. In this context, the real difference between firms will therefore lie not so much in the tools they use – which are becoming increasingly similar – but in their ability to manage and capitalise on their in-house expertise.
Without this element, there is a risk of producing uniform outputs, thereby diminishing the professional’s distinctive contribution. The integration of technology and proprietary knowledge therefore becomes the key competitive factor.
At our firm, WST Law & Tax Firm, for example, we have decided to adopt AI in a pragmatic way by using document analysis and drafting documents, with constant professional oversight.
At the same time, we place a strong emphasis on building up our in-house expertise, encouraging selected and trained internal staff to develop AI agents, which we consider essential for optimising the use of these tools and ensuring quality.
Conclusion
In the Italian context, AI represents a gradual evolution. Professionals remain at the heart of the process, whilst technology expands their capabilities.
The challenge ahead will be to combine innovation with responsibility, whilst retaining a distinctive element that, at least for now, cannot be replicated by an algorithm: professional judgement. (photo by Conny Schneider on Unsplash)
Note to the reader: the author is an executive partner at WST Law & Tax Firm
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©
