A
recent
Wall
Street
Journal
headline
caught
my
eye.
The
gist
of
the
article,
entitled
CEOs
Start
Saying
the
Quiet
Part
Out
Loud:
AI
Will
Wipe
Out
Jobs,
is
what
it
sounds.
It
quotes
a
number
of
CEOs
to
the
effect
that
AI
is
going
to
massively
impact
white
collar
jobs.
The
article
further
points
out
that
these
leaders
have
until
recently
sugarcoated
the
impact
AI
will
have,
particularly
on
white
collar
jobs.
That
view
is
now
evolving
as
AI
becomes
increasingly
capable.
(These
realities
were
recently
brought
home
to
me
as
I
watched
two
very
fine
and
knowledgeable
people
at
Microsoft
get
laid
off.)
Lawyers
aren’t
immune
and
are
mentioned
by
one
industry
leader
in
the
article
as
being
ripe
for
downsizing.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
at
best,
AI
is
going
to
significantly
disrupt
white
collar
work
either
by
reducing
the
workforce
or
by
requiring
that
the
nature
of
white
collar
work
change.
A
More
Optimistic
View
A
second
article
I
saw,
one
by
Akshay
Verma,
is
more
optimistic,
at
least
for
legal.
(The
article
appeared
in
the
Beacon,
a
Newsletter
of
Spotdraft.)
Verma
says
that
automation
and
AI
will
free
up
time
historically
spent
on
administrative
burdens.
In
turn,
this
will
enable
freed
up
lawyers
to
deliver
greater
strategic
value.
He
cites
how
legal
ops
teams
had
a
similar
impact
as
a
result
of
the
Great
Recession.
Lawyers
will
become
“strategic
advisors,
risk
architects
and
business
enablers,”
according
to
Verma.
Verma’s
view
is
the
one
traditionally
heralded
in
the
legal
community:
AI
will
not
replace
lawyers,
it
will
replace
lawyers
that
don’t
use
it.
If
correct,
this
opportunity
combined
with
the
increased
workload
that
AI
is
bringing
to
legal
as
I
recently
discussed,
could
open
a
new
world
so
the
theory
goes.
But
Let’s
Not
Get
Ahead
of
Ourselves
But
before
we
go
too
far
down
that
optimistic
path,
let’s
consider
some
inconvenient
and
troubling
realities.
First,
it’s
true
that
at
least
for
the
time
being,
AI
is
resulting
in
more,
not
less,
work.
This
new
work
comes
from
matters
that
before
AI
could
simply
not
be
done
with
sufficient
efficiency
to
make
them
worthwhile
doing.
But
that
presently
untapped
work
will
at
some
point
be
exhausted,
however.
The
question
will
then
be
whether
there
is
even
still
more
untapped
work
out
there
to
replace
it.
Or
will
there
be
entirely
new
categories
of
work
that
AI
still
can’t
do
well?
Which
raises
a
second
point.
As
we
move
forward,
AI
will
be
able
to
take
and
do
increasingly
more
difficult
and
complex
tasks.
If
true,
AI
could
erode
some
of
the
human
tasks
that
today
us
humans
must
do
because
AI
can’t.
So,
the
new
work
that
AI
generates
may
one
day
be
cannibalized
by
AI.
While
today,
AI
is
creating
more
work,
tomorrow
it
may
do
that
work.
Which
brings
me
to
a
third
potential
reality.
Yes,
AI
will
free
up
lawyers
to
do
more
strategic
and
visionary
things.
The
kinds
of
things
Verma
envisions
them
doing.
But
two
things.
First,
the
standard
reasoning
is
no
doubt
true:
AI
will
no
doubt
give
all
of
us
more
time
to
do
the
visionary
thing.
It
already
has.
But
We
Aren’t
All
Good
at
the
Visionary
Thing
But
I
practiced
for
a
long
time.
And
I’ll
be
honest:
the
reality
is
that
there
are
not
that
many
lawyers
who
are
good
at
overall
strategy
and
vision.
It’s
not
something
they
teach
in
law
school.
And
not
every
lawyer,
even
with
more
time,
will
grow
into
that
role
and
develop
those
skills.
The
second
reality
is
AI
is
gunning
for
this
work
too.
AI
is
already
not
bad
at
strategy
and
vision
and
it’s
only
going
to
get
better.
(See
my
recent
article
on
how
medical
diagnostic
AI
models
could
be
applied
to
legal.)
The
result?
Less
need
for
the
high-end
lawyer/thinker.
That’s
reality.
Fewer
lawyers
with
the
skill
Verma
envisions,
less
need
for
those
skills.
So
even
if
we
free
up
more
time
for
strategic
thinking,
that
doesn’t
mean
that
all
of
us
are
going
be
spending
more
time
doing
it.
A
sobering
prospect,
to
say
the
least.
Here’s
one
other
real
problem
that
we
are
going
to
have
to
face.
The
business
model
of
most
law
firms
has
for
years
been
the
billable
hour.
It’s
a
simple
model:
bill
more
hours,
make
more
money.
And
because
one
person
can
only
bill
so
many
hours
a
day/week/year,
you
can
only
increase
what
you
make
by
leveraging
matters
and
having
as
many
people
work
on
a
matter
as
possible.
The
Real
Business
Model
Problem
The
result:
in
the
age
of
AI,
there
may
simply
be
too
many
lawyers.
We
built
a
model
based
on
maximizing
time
spent.
As
a
result,
the
profession
is
over
built
and
is
particularly
susceptible
to
disruption
by
a
technology
that
has
the
potential
to
so
substantially
reduce
time
spent
on
matters.
And
when
you
overbuild,
you
hire
and
promote
people
who
aren’t
necessarily
good
at
being
the
“valued
advisor”
but
who
are
good
at
generating
billable
hours.
It
certainly
doesn’t
mean
that
the
leverage
model
protects
us.
What
Now?
Where
does
all
this
go?
It
remains
to
be
seen.
But
it’s
just
these
kinds
of
questions
that
leaders
in
the
profession
need
to
be
asking.
Maybe
the
future
will
be
more
of
the
same
as
the
past.
But
if
CEOs
are
now
saying
the
quiet
part
out
loud,
it’s
time
for
legal
to
do
the
same.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.