Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming how businesses operate, but its most immediate impact in the legal sector is not efficiency – it is risk.
This was a key theme emerging from the Adams & Adams Crammer 2026 event, held at the Leonardo in Sandton last week. The annual complimentary conference, designed for legal professionals and business leaders, focuses on translating critical legal developments into actionable insights, covering topics like IP, technology transfer and commercial law.
Futurist and strategy consultant Graeme Codrington set the tone, arguing that organisations are focusing on the wrong challenge.
“The future of AI in law is not about mastering technology but about mastering leadership,” he said.
Codrington noted that while generative AI tools have driven widespread experimentation since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, most organisations fail to translate this activity into real business value. Research from MIT, he added, shows that many AI initiatives fall short because companies remain stuck at basic productivity use cases like summarisation and drafting, rather than rethinking workflows and business models.
He introduced a five-level framework for AI impact, arguing that the real opportunity lies beyond efficiency, in transforming how services are delivered and governed. Crucially, he warned that generative AI systems are designed to produce plausible outputs, not verified truth, making human oversight essential in legal contexts.
While AI is changing how firms operate internally, it is also amplifying external risk, particularly in how brands are perceived online.
Melissa Morris, senior associate trademark attorney at Adams & Adams, highlighted how the rise of the creator economy has shifted control of brand narratives away from organisations.
“The creator economy is massive, fast-moving and deeply influential – and it’s also where reputational harm most often begins,” she said.
She described a landscape where micro-influencers, anonymous reviewers and AI-generated content can shape public perception in real-time, often faster than organisations can respond. In this environment, a single misleading clip, fake account or surge of negative reviews can significantly damage credibility within hours.
Morris introduced the concept of “ambush identity”, where a company’s brand, or even an executive’s persona, is impersonated or misrepresented online. This can include deepfakes, fake profiles or out-of-context content, all amplified by algorithms that prioritise engagement over accuracy.
“Platforms reward drama,” she noted. “Even if it’s inaccurate.”
As a result, she argued that reputation must be treated as a core business asset, not a soft metric. Legal protections such as trademarks, copyrights and personality rights are becoming critical tools in responding quickly to misuse.
Equally important is preparedness. Continuous monitoring, impersonation detection and predefined crisis response frameworks are now essential.
“The right moment to respond online was five minutes ago,” Morris said.
The risks extend into how brands themselves are created, particularly as businesses increasingly turn to AI tools for naming and design.
Trademark practitioners Marcelle Samons and Tshireletso Tlholoe cautioned that while AI can accelerate the creative process, it does not replace legal due diligence.
“Normal trademark rules still apply. There are no shortcuts from a legal perspective,” Samons said.
AI-generated brand names, she explained, can easily conflict with existing trademarks, as these tools lack access to comprehensive registries and cannot reliably assess legal risk. Human judgement remains essential in determining whether a name is available and defensible.
She also pointed to growing uncertainty around copyright ownership. Because AI systems generate outputs based on existing datasets, businesses often have limited visibility into how content is created and, in many cases, do not have exclusive rights to use it.
For companies building valuable brands, this lack of exclusivity can undermine long-term strategy.
Tlholoe added that AI still has a meaningful role to play when used correctly. It can support early-stage brand development by identifying naming trends, flagging cultural sensitivities across markets, generating marketing content and monitoring potential infringements online.
However, these tools should be seen as complementary, not definitive.
Across all discussions, a consistent message emerged: AI is not replacing legal expertise, but redefining where its value lies.
As information becomes more accessible through technology, the differentiator is shifting from knowledge to interpretation, judgement and strategic decision-making.
For legal professionals and businesses alike, the challenge is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to manage the risks that come with it – from flawed outputs and copyright ambiguity to reputational threats in an always-on digital world.
In this environment, success will depend less on how quickly organisations adopt AI, and more on how effectively they govern it.
Share
