In a world where generative AI can draft everything from essays to contracts, the temptation to “trust the machine” is growing fast. But as Laina Chan, award-winning barrister and CEO of MiAi Law, reminds us, close enough can be catastrophic in law.
In her recent conversation with Myles on the Xraised podcast, Laina explained that while tools like ChatGPT and Gemini can sound intelligent, they often lack one critical component: legal reasoning.
“These models use the same algorithm whether you’re asking for a recipe or legal advice,” she said. “There’s no legal rigor baked in.”
The result? Impressive-sounding answers that can’t withstand a judge’s question or a client’s scrutiny.
Unlike general AI systems that search the open web, MiAi Law retrieves information only from primary legal sources such as cases, legislation, and statutes. What makes it revolutionary, however, isn’t just what it retrieves but how it reasons.
Laina has translated her decades of legal expertise into code, embedding step-by-step legal methodology into MiAi Law’s engine. After retrieving results, the AI applies structured reasoning to filter, rank, and validate every authority before producing a report.
“Every reasoning step is revealed,” she explained. “The system shows which questions it asked itself, which cases it used, and which legal tests it applied. It’s completely transparent.”
That transparency, she added, is what transforms AI from a clever text generator into a reliable legal partner.
For Laina, MiAi Law isn’t about replacing lawyers—it’s about reinforcing diligence.
“Lawyers still have to check and verify,” she said. “But we make that process faster and easier.”
She recounted a troubling example: senior counsel in Australia submitting legal arguments riddled with fake cases generated by AI. “They trusted a general model and didn’t verify,” she noted. “Language models predict the next word. If they lack enough information, they simply invent answers. We don’t do that.”
MiAi Law avoids this trap by grounding every statement in verifiable authority. Each proposition in its reports includes a linked citation and paragraph reference, allowing users to open the exact source material and confirm accuracy instantly.
“It’s about saving time without sacrificing trust,” Laina said.
Laina’s approach is as ambitious as it is disciplined, taking centuries of legal reasoning and encoding it into machine logic. “When I get a legal problem, I break it down into its elements—breach, duty, causation, and so on,” she said. “MiAi Law does the same thing, but at scale.”
It’s the difference between keyword searching and legal thinking. The AI doesn’t just match patterns; it replicates how a barrister would analyze, test, and cross-reference every element of a case. That’s what makes it a genuine research partner, not a prediction engine.
MiAi Law has also undergone benchmarking against major tools like Lexis AI, Lexis Plus, Harvey, DeepSeek, and OpenAI. Using a 30-question test developed by Allens Linklater, the team compared how different systems performed on complex legal queries.
The results were eye-opening. Some large language models outperformed branded legal tools, but MiAi Law consistently delivered not just correct answers, but answers proven through cited authorities.
“Other tools might give you something that sounds right,” Laina said, “but we show you why it’s right.”
Laina shared a conversation with a senior in-house counsel who proudly uses ChatGPT to draft contracts, claiming 80 percent accuracy is good enough. She strongly disagreed.
“ChatGPT is not producing contracts at 80 percent—it’s maybe only 40 to 50 percent of the way there,” she said.
AI can assist, she argued, but it can’t replace human accountability. “It should reduce workload, not remove responsibility.”
Her words echo a wider truth about the future of work: speed without reliability isn’t an upgrade—it’s a liability.
Laina doesn’t claim that MiAi Law represents super-intelligence, but she believes it’s a significant leap toward what she calls legal super-efficiency. “It’s the closest thing to extra- human intelligence I’ve seen in legal research,” she said. “It reasons the way I do—only faster.”
The difference isn’t just technological—it’s philosophical. MiAi Law is built on the principle that AI should be accountable, explainable, and ethically grounded. Every answer can be verified. Every claim can be traced back to source.
As Myles summed up in the episode: “In law, speed without reliability isn’t progress—it’s peril.”
Laina Chan couldn’t agree more. “AI shouldn’t replace judgment—it should enhance it.” For legal professionals seeking speed and certainty, MiAi Law offers both. It doesn’t just provide answers. It provides proof.
