23.10.2017

AI Redefining the Practice of Law

In the field of law, it is often imagined that digitalisation and the practical applications of AI will be limited to mergers and acquisitions and real estate transactions. The truth of the matter, however, is that AI can already be used for much more.

In the future, it will be possible to use AI applications for communication between clients and attorneys as well as for proposing concrete solutions to clients. When used right in companies other than law firms, AI may also be able to help make in-house departments more efficient or even replace an in-house lawyer entirely.

Leveraging Automation in Contracts and Reports

It is clear that AI will be increasingly put to use in M&A and real estate transactions. As the automation of tables data and even the reports themselves progresses, vendor due diligence reports will likely become the standard beside information memorandums and teaserses. Appendices that are currently only seen in the largest M&A transactions will likely become more common in smaller deals as well, as it will be possible to just check off what appendices you want from a list based on material reviewed by an AI.

Reviews carried out by AI applications will become common beyond just M&A and real estate transactions. We are currently in discussions with some of our clients about what other types of cases could benefit from AI. The simplest way to find an answer is to ask what kinds of contracts a company has high volumes of. With these kinds of contracts, a company will often encounter a situation in which the template it has been using has to be changed to reflect a change in legislation, a business decision of the company or a practical risk that has arisen. This would be a situation in which an AI could be unleashed into the mass of similar contracts to find how many of them contain a particular relevant clause.

From the perspective of the duty of care of the board of directors, the availability of an AI application could mean that the board would be expected to use AI to identify risks. The fact that the relevant material is too extensive would no longer serve as grounds to base a risk analysis on an estimate rather than a review.

What Next?

The applications available at the moment are quite advanced, but not yet close to producing fully automated results—a great deal of human work is still needed. So, what can companies and their boards do now to prepare to make use of AI in the future?

The foundation for using any AI application is to provide the AI with a mass of digital data. If you don’t already have a digital contract database, now would be the time to establish one. AIs can also certainly improve the efficiency of legal departments. AIs only need to be programmed once to perform a certain sequence of tasks and it will have all of the company’s written data at its disposal.

The next stage is seeing how AI will change traditional communication between lawyers and their clients. When will we have a legal AI system that works like the AI developed by Duodecim for patient data systems A system like that would read the documentation provided by the client, provide direct links to legal literature, laws and government services and recommend ‘current care guidelines’ for the client’s problem.

As electronic channels are used for the majority communication in client relationships, it is only natural that it will matter less and less whether you are communicating with a human or a machine. Of course, machines will not be able to replace humans in more complex problems any time soon. This is both due to machines lacking the ability of abstract though and to the fact that these kinds of assignments are often the most attractive to lawyers—no one is looking to get rid of them.

Latest references

We successfully represented a Finnish construction management consultancy and a safety coordinator employed by the company in criminal proceedings concerning an alleged occupational safety and health offence. The prosecutor sought a penalty for an alleged breach of occupational safety regulations. The charge arose from a fall accident at a construction site where our client acted as the safety coordinator appointed by the developer. We assessed the scope of the safety coordinator’s duties in relation to the responsibilities of the main contractor, as well as how our client had fulfilled their obligations in practice. We demonstrated that our client had acted with due care and in full compliance with their duties throughout the planning, preparation and execution of the construction project. The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa dismissed the charge against our client. The Court held that our client, in their capacity as safety coordinator, had duly fulfilled the occupational safety obligations incumbent on the developer during the planning and preparation phases of the construction project and had not been aware of the fall protection deficiency identified at the site. The judgment is final insofar as our client is concerned.
Case published 22.6.2026
We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its financial management services business to Rantalainen as part of its strategic focus on fully concentrating on the delivery of business applications as well as data and AI solutions. As a result of the transaction, customer contracts related to financial management services and 65 experts working in these services will transfer to Rantalainen. The transaction will be carried out as a transfer of business, and the experts will move to the new owner as existing employees. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere.
Case published 12.6.2026
We advised lead investor Ugly Duckling Ventures on the EUR 6.5 million funding round of Skyfora. The round also included Eviny Ventures, LUMO Labs and EIC Fund, alongside non-dilutive funding from Business Finland. The investment will support the commercial scale-up of Skyfora’s weather intelligence solutions, the expansion of partnerships with telecom operators, forecasting providers and meteorological institutions, and the continued growth of the team. Skyfora is a Finnish company developing high-resolution weather data solutions using patented technology that extracts atmospheric data from GNSS receivers embedded in existing infrastructure, such as telecom networks. By unlocking previously untapped data sources, Skyfora enables the next generation of AI-driven weather forecasting and supports improved decision-making across weather-sensitive industries. Ugly Duckling Ventures is a Copenhagen-based venture capital firm focused on early-stage Nordic B2B technology companies, with an emphasis on medtech, resilience tech and business services.
Case published 10.6.2026
castren snellman general atlantic iceye
We advised General Atlantic as the lead investor on ICEYE’s EUR 1 billion series F funding round, valuing the company at over EUR 10 billion. ICEYE raised EUR 450 million (USD 520 million) in a primary Series F funding round led by General Atlantic. Additional investors included Solidium, Tesi, Varma, Ilmarinen, Lifeline Ventures, Nokia, Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and TCV. Together with a secondary placement, the total fundraising exceeds EUR 1 billion. ICEYE is the world leader in sovereign intelligence from space, providing continuous monitoring capabilities to detect and respond to changes in any location on Earth. The company operates the world’s largest and most advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar satellite constellation. General Atlantic is a leading global investor with more than four and a half decades of experience providing capital and strategic support for over 885 companies throughout its history. As of March 31, 2026, General Atlantic manages approximately USD 126 billion in assets across its investment strategies. We advised General Atlantic on this transaction in collaboration with the international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Case published 9.6.2026