The
skills
clients
will
demand
from
their
lawyers
are
about
to
change
dramatically.
Or
are
they?
The
McKinsey
Panel
At
CES
2026,
one
of
the
more
revealing
keynotes
featured
Jason
Calacanis
interviewing
Bob
Sternfels
of
McKinsey
and
Heman
Taneja
of
General
Catalyst
about
the
future
of
employment,
among
other
things.
What
emerged
wasn’t
just
advice
for
new
graduates,
it
signaled
a
roadmap
for
how
lawyers
need
to
think
about
client
origination
and
service.
At
one
point,
the
panelists
touched
on
a
critical
issue:
what
skills
will
be
sought
after
by
employers
with
the
advent
of
agentic
AI.
While
the
panelists
focused
on
those
who
are
getting
out
of
school
in
today’s
tough
employment
market,
what
they
were
talking
about
will
also
apply
to
what
lawyers
will
have
to
do
to
attract
future
clients.
A
Game
Changer?
The
game
changer
in
hiring
according
to
the
panel:
businesses
will
no
longer
be
focused
on
those
who
can
just
solve
problems
because
so
many
problems
can
and
will
be
solved
by
AI.
The
first
question
to
ask
is
instead
what
skills
humans
have
that
GenAI
and
AI
don’t.
According
to
the
panelist,
it
boils
down
to
three
things:
AI
can’t
aspire,
it
can’t
provide
leadership,
and
it
can’t
apply
human
judgment.
New
Skills?
As
a
result,
the
future
will
belong
to
those
who
ask
the
right
questions
about
the
problems.
Who
can
look
at
what
a
problem
means.
Who
can
figure
out
the
impact
the
problem
—
and
more
importantly,
the
solution
—
will
have
for
the
future.
It
will
matter
less
what
school
candidates
go
to
and
more
what
they
aspire
to.
How
resilient
they
can
be.
Leadership
skills
will
be
more
important.
And
drive
and
passion
may
be
everything.
If
you
want
to
get
hired,
the
panelists
say
worry
less
about
your
resume
and
more
about
doing
some
work,
even
if
for
free,
that
demonstrates
what
you
can
do.
That
shows
you
have
new
ways
of
thinking
about
things.
And
how
you
can
change
a
system
or
platform
for
the
person
you
want
to
be
hired
by.
Hiring
will
not
be
premised
on
future
on-the-job
training
since
it
will
take
less
time
to
build
an
agentic
agent
than
for
human
training.
(This
point
was
driven
home
to
me
later
in
a
keynote
by
Caterpillar
CEO
Joe
Creed
and
his
team.
They
displayed
an
AI
bot
that
can
provide
step-by-step
instructions
to
a
heavy
equipment
operator,
bypassing
an
otherwise
steep
learning
curve.)
This
means
that
some
kinds
of
experience
will
matter
less
and
judgment
more.
It
will
not
be
enough
to
recite
information;
it
will
be
the
ability
to
use
that
information
in
gray
areas
where
there
is
no
clear-cut
right
or
wrong
answer.
Being
nimble
and
innovative
will
matter
more.
AI
and
technology
in
general
are
developing
at
exponentially
warp
speed.
Being
adept
at
fast
adoption
and
implementation
will
matter
more
than
ever.
All
sounded
pretty
astute
even
though
the
panelists
lacked
concrete
examples.
But
more
than
that,
I
think
they
misunderstand
what
skills
and
talents
already
set
superstars
apart.
What
sets
themselves
apart.
Thinking
about
this
in
the
legal
context
might
help.
Asking
the
Right
Questions
I
often
handled
serial
litigation—cases
involving
the
same
product,
same
issues,
and
same
harm
in
a
variety
of
jurisdictions—over
my
career.
These
cases
were
often
viewed
as
merely
requiring
a
standard
playbook.
File
an
answer,
take
depositions,
defend
the
cases,
bill
by
the
hour.
But
one
particular
case
was
unusual.
It
needed
a
new
way
of
thinking
and
asking
the
right
questions.
It
meant
noticing
that
most
of
the
individual
cases
resolved
via
settlement
at
mediation,
that
it
was
important
to
the
client
to
move
the
cases
quickly,
and
that
many
of
the
lawyers
on
the
other
side
were
also
very
knowledgeable
about
the
cases.
That
led
to
quickly
getting
the
client
the
information
needed
to
assess
the
exposure
by
asking
the
other
side
to
provide
that
information
with
the
complaint.
In
exchange,
it
meant
a
commitment
to
the
other
side
to
mediate
the
case
within
60
days.
And
it
meant
converting
to
a
flat
fee
instead
of
billable
hour
to
solve
client
goals.
The
result:
a
national
problem
for
the
client
was
resolved
in
a
fraction
of
the
time
previously
thought.
That’s
asking
the
right
questions
and
coming
up
with
a
new
holistic
approach.
What
This
Means
for
Legal
If
the
panelists
were
right,
it
would
seem
at
first
blush
the
legal
world
is
about
to
be
turned
upside
down.
The
traditional
legal
model
assumes
law
schools
will
teach
people
the
law.
Young
lawyers
would
then
learn
how
to
practice
by
apprenticing
at
firms;
the
proverbial
on-the-job
training.
As
they
moved
up
the
ladder,
they
would
get
clients
by
knowing
the
law,
providing
information
to
clients,
and
standing
out
for
their
expertise.
But
that
model
seems
different
than
what
the
panelists
outlined.
And
while
the
panel
was
talking
about
how
to
get
hired
out
of
school,
they
might
just
as
well
have
been
talking
about
how
a
lawyer
gets
hired
by
a
client.
A
client
who
may
think
just
like
those
on
the
panel.
What
does
this
mean?
It
may
no
longer
be
enough
to
be
able
to
do
a
workman-like
job
solving
legal
problems.
Instead,
what
will
matter
more
is
the
ability
to
provide
holistic
answers
to
what
the
client
needs.
It
means
harnessing
the
tech
tools
and
providing
what
clients
can’t
get
from
their
own
AI
agents.
It
requires
asking
better
questions;
questions
the
client
may
not
have
thought
of.
To
have
the
passion,
drive,
and
aspiration
to
see
things
differently.
To
be
able
to
lead
a
team.
To
be
resilient
in
the
face
of
change.
To
demonstrate
your
abilities
by
offering
to
handle
a
client’s
matters
in
new
and
unusual
ways.
Experience
will
matter,
yes,
but
only
to
the
extent
it
supplies
judgment
to
do
things
in
better
ways.
To
get
to
the
core
issues,
not
the
surface
ones.
It
won’t
be
enough
to
send
a
client
an
email
notifying
them
of
a
development
the
client
will
likely
find
on
their
own.
It
won’t
be
enough
to
tell
them
the
news;
you
will
need
to
tell
them
what
it
means.
It
won’t
be
enough
to
be
an
expert
in
a
field.
You
will
need
to
show
how
you
can
use
that
expertise
to
do
things
an
AI
agent
can’t
do
and
the
client
can’t
access
on
their
own.
That
takes
judgment.
But
Then
Again,
Isn’t
That
What
Superstars
Have
Always
Done?
But
then
again,
isn’t
that
what
superstar
lawyers
and
originators
have
always
done?
Isn’t
that
what
my
example
demonstrates?
It’s
that
ability
and
willingness
to
adapt
to
new
issues
and
challenges
and
use
those
challenges
for
your
benefit.
It’s
not
being
constrained
by
experience
but
using
it.
It’s
asking
the
right
questions
and
seeing
where
things
may
be
going.
The
question
is
not
what
surface
skills
will
get
me
hired.
It’s
asking
what
conceptual
approach
will
provide
what
clients
really
need.
And
in
some
cases,
that
means
figuring
out
the
needs
before
the
client
does.
Like
showing
the
client
the
solution
to
their
legal
budget
crisis
is
for
you
to
change
your
billing
model.
Asking
what
skills
you
need
for
the
future
and
how
to
get
them
is
the
wrong
question.
The
right
question
is
how
you
should
philosophically
approach
what
you’re
doing
in
ways
a
bot
can’t.
That
philosophy
must
include
being
aspirational,
having
passion,
and
being
ready
to
change
and
adapt.
And
putting
your
client
first.
Want
to
be
hired
in
the
future?
Start
with
the
right
mindset.
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.