By Kofi Anokye OWUSU-DARKO(Dr)
Within the hush of a courthouse, traditions frequently seem unshakable. The legal attire, grave magistrates, and the burden of past rulings shape an environment historically considered impervious to change.
Even as artificial intelligence (AI) transforms sectors ranging from healthcare to banking, the legal field remains convinced of its immunity to such disruption.
The ceremonies, logic, and eloquence of this practice have appeared far too human, too instinctive, and too intricate to imitate. Yet, even within these realms, transformation has made an entrance—not as a novice attorney, but as a virtual legal aide.
As someone who champions digital rights and has a keen interest in both law and information technology, I’ve always found the overlap between technology and justice fascinating.
Driven by the advancing abilities of artificial intelligence, I created a legal aid tool designed to analyze court decisions, pinpoint legal problems, forecast appeals, and assist litigants—especially those who, according to Ghanaian law, have the right to self-representation.
The allure associated with legal practice—the “scholarly” label frequently linked to attorneys—has begun to fade. Legal expertise is no longer confined within law offices; instead, it can be easily accessed, taught, and implemented through technology.
Today, we function within a legal framework where courtroom filings follow standard procedures, legal presentations adhere to specific structures, and well-defined formats are established for documents such as writs, claims, and defenses.
This opens up room for litigants who have a strong grasp of legal principles to build substantial arguments based on facts and laws, while mostly relegating procedural details like compliance with service and filing deadlines to experts. Here, Legal AI doesn’t supplant the law; rather, it renders the law more accessible.
This article provides an insider’s perspective on using myLegal AI tool, the Legal Insight Analyzer, to handle a live appeals process without any lawyers involved. It highlights the subtle but significant impact this technology has on transforming legal representation.
This highlights a significant change: laws continue to be crucial, but lawyers—who are still important—need to reassess their roles to stay relevant.
SELF-REPRESENTATION
A key feature that empowers people within Ghana’s civil justice system is the ability for individuals to self-represent in court. This privilege is not merely conceptual; it is explicitly supported by the guidelines of civil procedures.
According to Order 4 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), “Apart from these rules, anyone can initiate and pursue legal actions either personally or through an attorney.”
This regulation specifically acknowledges that a person involved in litigation can start and pursue legal actions without the assistance of an attorney. It establishes the principle of access to justice — indicating that having legal representation is optional rather than mandatory.
Furthermore, Order 75 Rule 1(2) states that even when a party begins with legal representation, they still have the authority to manage their own case: “A party who has a lawyer can, under rule 2, dismiss the lawyer at any moment and choose to represent themselves.”
This indicates that self-representation can be initiated at any juncture—whether at the outset of the case or at any subsequent phase.
In practice, this right is most visible in Magistrate and Circuit Courts, where laypersons frequently represent themselves, especially in land disputes, matrimonial actions, and debt recovery cases. These proceedings are conducted under the same rules that govern higher courts, making them fertile ground for accessible legal technology.
Given that the structure and formatting of pleadings have been standardized as per C.I. 47, the main obstacle now is not the lack of legal eligibility, but rather a deficiency in practical legal understanding.
This is where Legal AI tools come in — not as a replacement for lawyers, but as a scaffold for self-representation, helping individuals present their case clearly, logically, and within the bounds of procedural rules.
What was once an intimidating process is now being reshaped — into something navigable, teachable, and increasingly automated. Legal AI does not undermine the law; it amplifies the ability of citizens to access and use it.
THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
The case that sparked this legal-tech experiment was a land dispute involving the estate of a deceased man and two individuals claiming overlapping ownership of a tract of land.
The plaintiffs — administrators of the estate — sought a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction. The defendants contested the claim on multiple grounds, including adverse possession, estoppel, and procedural irregularities.
After hearing the case, the High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs had properly established title through a seventy-nine year old Indenture, supported by registered documentation and Letters of Administration. The defendants, in contrast, failed to prove either lawful title or uninterrupted possession.
Shortly after the ruling, the defendants indicated their intention to appeal. At that point, I decided to deploy the Legal Insight Analyser — a Legal AI tool I had developed using AI models and legal design frameworks — to test whether it could predict the likely grounds of appeal and support the respondent in defending the decision.
WHAT I DID
Initially, the task involved uploading the entire High Court ruling into the Legal Insight Analyser system that I created. The software subsequently analyzed this document and generated an organized legal summary. This process pinpointed key legal questions at hand, underlying judicial rationale, as well as cited statutes, before assessing possible vulnerabilities within the verdict that could be exploited during an appellate challenge.
According to its assessment, the AI forecasted multiple potential reasons for appeal, which include:
- That the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by limitation laws due to the statutes of limitations,
- The first plaintiff did not have legal capacity because the Letters of Administration were missing.
- That the registration of the title had flaws or went beyond the initially approved area,
- It was that the defendants were innocent buyers.
- It was noted that there were procedural mistakes in the revised petition.
- And that the judgment was against the weight of evidence.
The AI not only listed the reasons but also prioritized them based on their probable impact, predicting which ones would have the strongest effect on an appeals court.
THE REAL REASONS FOR THE APPEAL
A few weeks later, the defendants submitted their official reasons for appealing to the Court of Appeal. Upon uploading these documents into the system, it immediately became evident that the AI’s forecasts had been remarkably accurate.
The actual premises closely matched what was predicted by the tool, mirroring not only the substance but also the prioritization of each point. Starting with the limitations argument all the way through to the innocent purchaser assertion, and including discussions about supposed procedural flaws as well as arguments based on the preponderance of evidence, every key issue had been foreseen.
This marked a pivotal moment. It demonstrated that with a properly trained AI, we have the capability to break down legal reasoning as well as predict litigation strategies with impressive precision.
RESPONSE PREPARATION UTILIZING THE LEGAL INSIGHT ANALYZER
While the appeal was still underway, I utilized the Legal Insight Analyser to create an extensive appellate reply. This document can either be directly employed by the respondents if they choose to represent themselves, or serve as a well-researched memorandum to assist their legal advisors.
The instrument generated a structured Heads of Argument, a carefully selected List of Ghanaian Authorities, along with comprehensive legal reasoning tackling every expected ground for appeal.
The outcome was a submission that strictly adhered to courtroom regulations—convincing, thoroughly cited, and professionally presented. Every legal point was distinctly expressed, backed by pertinent case law, and consistent with established procedures.
The standard of the output matched that provided by seasoned appellate lawyers, highlighting the tool’s ability to equip litigants with advanced legal documents and strategies.
PREDICTED PANEL QUESTIONS
To simulate real courtroom conditions, the tool was then used to predict likely questions from the appellate panel.
Examples included:
- “Why should we accept that limitation doesn’t apply here?”
- Was the Lands Commission empowered to increase the size of the registered land?
- Did the procedural mistake in the writ invalidate the entire process?
Every query received answers from the model that included pertinent legal references, foreseeing how an attorney might argue in court. This resource provided more than mere legal arguments; it delivered fully formed courtroom advocacy ready for use.
8.0 COUNTER ARGUMENT FROM THE APPELLANT AND REJOINDER FROM THE RESPONDENT
The tool proceeded further by predicting potential counter-arguments that the Appellants could make, including:
- Reported presence of Letters of Administration issued by the District Court,
- Claims of genuine intention to buy,
- Complaints of procedural unfairness.
For each case, the tool generated a rebuttal on behalf of the respondent—citing relevant case laws, factual evidence from the records, and logical reasoning. Additionally, it created scripts for oral arguments at critical junctures such as:
- When the panel asks, “Why are we here?”
- And when the person being questioned is prompted with “What do you have to say?”
Here are the actual pivotal moments in appellate advocacy—and these were foreseen and designed according to the specifications of the AI Legal Insight Analyzer.
EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF APPEALS: AI-ASSISTED PROBABILITY ANALYSIS
To aid in crafting the strategy, the Legal Insight Analyzer provided probability assessments for each anticipated grounds of appeal.
-
Limitation –
Moderate
The topic is relevant, yet lacks substantial evidence. -
Capacity Argument –
Low
: Undermined during cross-examination. -
Procedural Defect –
Very Low
: Showed no evident bias against the defendants. -
Innocent Purchaser Claim –
Moderate
Rests on constructive notice and good faith. -
Weight of Evidence –
Very Low
The trial court’s findings were thorough and well-substantiated.
This probabilistic assessment facilitated a more strategic approach—bolstering robust arguments while confidently tackling less solid ones. By converting legal logic into practical guidance, the tool improves decision-making during the appeals process.
LAWYERS: EVOLVE OR FACE IRRELEVANCE
-
The Automation Dilemma: When Artificial Intelligence Is Your Assistant
The legal field finds itself at a crucial turning point. Artificial intelligence has transitioned from a hypothetical disrupter to an integral part of daily practice. What was once the domain of new attorneys spending time on tedious document review and basic paperwork can now be handled swiftly and precisely through AI systems such as the Legal Insight Analyser. This dramatic change necessitates that lawyers reassess their role significantly.
-
From Creators to Planners: The Human Advantage
The growth of artificial intelligence isn’t merely altering the way lawyers operate; it’s also transforming who possesses legal knowledge, along with the associated influence. The era where legal proficiency was judged by an individual’s capacity to remember past cases or compose impeccable briefs is coming to a close.
Modern artificial intelligence can now analyze rulings, forecast appeal results, and produce ready-for-court paperwork within minutes—duties that were once the core activities of legal work. However, this does not make lawyers redundant; instead, it reshapes what constitutes top-tier performance in our field.
Lawyers who will succeed in this evolving landscape are those who understand that their core value extends beyond tasks that automation can handle. This intrinsic worth is found in critical decisions where algorithms fall short: deciding whether to accept favorable terms for settlement, maneuvering through complex ethical issues, and devising innovative strategies that break from traditional approaches. Such human abilities—intuition, ethical thinking, and inventive problem-solving—are now key indicators of superior legal prowess.
-
The New Fee Debate
This shift inevitably alters the way legal services are charged for and provided. The conventional hourly billing approach, which is already under pressure from clients’ examination, becomes unsustainable when AI can execute similar tasks at a much lower cost.
Progressive companies are currently exploring value-driven pricing models—such as taking a share of the recovered damages instead of billing hourly for tasks that machines can perform rapidly. Some businesses provide layered service options, combining AI-driven efficiencies with human-led strategic guidance.
-
From Gatekeepers to Guides
One of the most significant transformations may occur within the lawyer-client dynamic. Similar to how patients enter doctors’ clinics equipped with information gathered from healthcare sites, clients might attend legal meetings with AI-produced summaries and case studies. Instruments such as the Legal Insight Analyzer could enable them to pose specific queries: “Why isn’t this key precedent being referenced?” or “Can you clarify why your tactics differ from what the AI suggests?” Equipped with these AI resources, clients will likely seek detailed explanations for each disregarded motion, agreement, or citation. Consequently, lawyers’ roles would evolve away from traditional functions.
“trust me”
\xa0to\xa0
“here’s why this works.”
This transformation turns lawyers into navigators of intricate strategic terrains instead of mere custodians of legal information. Skilled professionals will not view well-informed queries negatively; rather, they’ll see them as chances to showcase their expertise. They could clarify when an ostensibly perfect legal argument may backfire due to potential alienation of a specific judge, or discuss how tactical factors can take precedence over what seems like the most robust case on paper.
THE UPCOMING ERA IN LEGAL EDUCATION
Breaking the Memorization Model
The conventional law school approach—which involves students memorizing case titles, judges’ comments, and minute legal procedures—is rapidly growing obsolete in the age of artificial intelligence. Think about how ridiculous an examination query might be, such as one asking:
Pinpoint the original case and the judge who stated, ‘Nobody, regardless of their power and authority, can replace something with an entity that has never existed.’
This type of question assesses mere fact recall, a capability rendered almost archaic due to AI instruments such as
Legal Insight Analyser
These tools can immediately find the quotation, offer complete citations, track the legal history, analyze subsequent developments, and compare how different regions interpret them.
Instead of promoting critical thinking, debate, or decision-making skills, students are expending mental effort competing with machines in tasks where these devices now excel significantly. The required change involves adjusting teaching methods—to equip students with the ability to analyze, understand within context, and question AI-produced legal arguments rather than imitate or outdo them.
Allowing AI to “Understand the Law”
The primary foundation of legal education—the deep understanding of laws—has undergone significant transformation. Previously, students devoted numerous hours to committing cases and statutes to memory. Nowadays, artificial intelligence tools such as
Legal Insight Analyser
Can be enhanced to recover every precedent, analyze its handling, and pinpoint crucial excerpts with unparalleled accuracy. As such, mindless memorization becomes redundant. No person can rival an AI’s memory or ability to make connections across different references.
Testing students on their memory of the law is now as outdated as handwriting deposition transcripts in the era of voice-to-text. Instead, we must acknowledge that AI is the new legal research assistant—able to scan the entire
corpus juris
and quickly bring forward the most pertinent experts.
Leaving Legal Strategy to the Experts
While AI masters the technical law, human lawyers must specialize in what machines can’t do: understanding the human elements of legal decision-making. The old saying that “a great lawyer knows the judge” is more relevant than ever.
Curricula must now instruct students on how to analyze judicial dispositions, predict unstated inclinations, and customize their arguments for individual judges.
This indicates effective litigation tactics: understanding, for instance, that Justice Anokye does not favor references to international judicial decisions, Judge Mensah emphasizes policy considerations in contractual conflicts, or the Commercial Court prefers succinct, point-form submissions.
Students should also grasp when to disregard AI’s suggestions—recognizing that even if a precedent is legally valid, using it might prove counterproductive with a specific judge. It is this understanding of judicial nuances that continues to make lawyers indispensable.
\xa0The New Collaborative Model
The direction for legal education in the future involves instructing students to work alongside artificial intelligence, whilst enhancing their human judgement which machines cannot emulate. This entails cultivating three key skills:
-
Technical Mastery
Formulating robust legal questions, deciphering AI responses, and validating outcomes from resources such as
Legal Insight Analyser
. -
Strategic Override
Understanding when and why to diverge from AI recommendations—considering context, client objectives, or legal tactics. -
Professional Judgment
Identifying gaps in AI’s perception, developing fresh perspectives, and reaching moral conclusions in intricate scenarios.
Tomorrow’s lawyer will be a hybrid practitioner—one who combines AI’s computational power with human insight into law, strategy, and ethics. These “bilingual” professionals—fluent in both legal reasoning and algorithmic logic—will be more effective than either alone.
It marks the start of a new era for legal work, characterized by greater strategy, transparency, and impact. This forward-looking path favors those attorneys who adopt such an approach—not just individuals versed in statutory laws, but professionals who grasp the underlying logic behind each tactical decision. These practitioners will elevate the quality of their services and provide enhanced benefits to their clientele.
12.0 IMPROVING THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING
Tools such as the Legal Insight Analyser could similarly revolutionize the judicial system by functioning as strategic research aids. These tools assist judges in examining plea submissions, witness testimonies, and legal contentions, thereby facilitating more thoroughly considered rulings.
When properly directed via legally sound prompt engineering, AI can undertake various essential roles:
-
Synthesising Case Materials
: Effectively analyzing intricate documents to pinpoint crucial information, legal questions, and missing evidence. -
Assessing Judgment Quality
Serving as a quality control mechanism by assessing proposed rulings based on the submissions, facts presented, and relevant legislation. -
Accelerated Drafting
: Helping create early versions of rulings—especially for administrative or routine matters—while maintaining judicial autonomy and supervision.
When thoughtfully integrated, such tools will allow judges to enhance both the
speed and quality
of adjudication. This is especially relevant in systems burdened by case backlogs and resource constraints. AI enables faster resolution of disputes without sacrificing legal rigour.
It positions AI not merely as a disruptive force, but as a
collaborative partner in legal reasoning, quality assurance, and timely adjudication
. The goal is not to mechanise judgment, but to augment the judge’s analytical capacity—freeing them to focus on the nuanced, context-sensitive decisions that define judicial excellence.
\xa0A WORD OF CAUTION
Legal AI is not a substitute for legal understanding. While the capabilities of the
Legal Insight Analyser
as I developed are impressive, it is important to sound a word of caution. Like any
AI system
, it is only as effective as its
design, training, and the understanding of its operator
.
The developer must not only know what the tool is supposed to do but must also possess a working grasp of
AI prompt engineering
to steer the system’s development. Without this, the tool might produce what is referred to as
“hallucinations”
— outputs that contain inaccuracies, absurdities, or misinformation. In legal settings, these mistakes can be not only expensive but also hazardous.
If a user doesn’t have a solid grasp of the legal matters involved—or isn’t sure how to steer the AI with proper legal prompts—the tool can’t fill that knowledge void. This often leads to a situation where someone without expertise is trying to navigate complexities they don’t understand.
An apt comparison would be Google Maps: when a driver has clarity about their final destination, they can recognize and correct incorrect instructions. However, lacking this awareness might cause the navigation system to guide them towards dead ends, circuitous routes, or time-consuming hold-ups. The tool meant to streamline travel could swiftly turn into an origin of bewilderment and mistakes.
Therefore, while
Legal AI
presents remarkable opportunities, it needs to be utilized
with wisdom, critical thinking, and constant human supervision
It is a robust helper — not a legal authority.
CONCLUSION
This wasn’t a simulation; it involved actual participants, a genuine High Court decision, and an ongoing appeal. Despite these realistic elements, everything from examining the verdict to drafting appeals was done with no attorney present, driven instead by a meticulously trained AI system via precise legal prompting.
The evaluation of the Legal Insight Analyser uncovered an important insight: obtaining justice no longer relies exclusively on consulting with legal experts. By using appropriate resources, people have the ability to comprehend as well as actively participate in legal matters.
Tools like this are effective only when built and applied by those who grasp both the legal and technological domains—where the two intersect and how they inform each other. Absent that dual fluency, AI can produce persuasive but flawed outputs, risking serious legal consequences.
This is more than a technological milestone—it is a transformative moment. One where knowledge is democratized, where strategy overtakes recall, and where lawyers must evolve from technicians to tacticians. Perhaps most importantly, Legal AI brings to life the constitutional and procedural right of self-representation.
What has been an established legal privilege within the rules of civil procedure is now evolving into something tangible and usable. With the advent of AI, this right shifts from being just a theoretical concept to a real-world application, allowing everyday individuals to engage effectively in intricate legal battles.
This future doesn’t make lawyers obsolete; instead, it transforms their role. The field now calls for legal strategists—individuals who merge human intuition with technical proficiency, embrace knowledgeable clients, and demonstrate wise decision-making in environments enhanced by artificial intelligence. Law continues to be crucial, but even more so, the lawyer functions primarily as a strategic advisor.
In this fresh approach, the “informed” lawyer is now assessed not by their skill in quoting cases and finding statutes, but rather by how effectively they can utilize the law with strategic insight, situational awareness, and sound decision-making. While having knowledge of the law remains essential, it alone is insufficient for achieving true expertise.
The writer advocates for digital rights and has earned degrees including an Executive Master of Business Administration with a focus on IT management, as well as both an LLB and LLM specializing in IT and telecommunication (for more information, visit: Kofianokye.blogspot.com; Kofidarko2.blogspot.com). For inquiries, please email [email protected].
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).
Leave a Reply