Given
the
recent
gyrations
in
the
markets,
it’s
no
wonder
that
people
are
jittery
about
the
effects
(past,
present,
and
future)
of
AI
in
our
profession.
True,
we
are
not
the
only
profession
that
is
nervous
about
AI’s
potential
to
completely
reset
our
landscape.
Jobs
once
stable
and
secure
may
not
be
any
more.
It’s
no
fun
looking
at
something
that
doesn’t
blink
back.
Panicking
about
our
demise
is
premature.
Lawyers
are
not
just
lawyers;
we
are
counselors
too.
How
often
have
we
sat
with
a
client
who
is
anxious,
fearful,
uncertain
as
to
how
to
proceed?
Sometimes
clients
need
to
vent,
to
feel
that
someone
is
truly
listening
to
them,
an
art
in
itself
that
many
lawyers
do
not
have.
Often,
it’s
not
legal
advice
that
is
needed
(sorry
billable
hours)
but
more
for
the
client
to
be
heard.
That’s
a
skill
that
we
don’t
do
often
enough:
to
listen
and
not
talk,
to
not
interrupt,
to
tell
the
client
and
show
that
nothing
is
more
important
than
the
here
and
now,
or
should
I
say
the
“the
hear
and
now.”
We’ve
all
chatted
about
emotional
intelligence
for
decades,
that
EQ
is
a
necessary component
of
lawyering,
but
it
seems
that
it’s
even
more
important
now
and
going
forward
for
lawyers
to
have
emotional
intelligence.
That
is
one
thing
that
large
language
models
and
other
forms
of
AI
just
don’t
have.
How
do
you
schmooze
with
a
robot?
Go
out
for
coffee?
Go
out
for
lunch?
Entertain
clients?
The
only
advantage
is
that
the
robot
doesn’t
have
to
run
home
to
take
care
of
the
family
or
any
personal
matters;
it
doesn’t
have
to
be
human.
The
robot
can
and
does
work
24/7.
Dreary,
but
the
robot
doesn’t
know
that,
at
least
not
yet.
One
tech
company
that
is
trying
to
install
a
moral
code
in
AI
is
Anthropic,
which
has
a
resident
philosopher
whose
job
is
to
teach
Claude
about
morality.
(And
I
am
not
making
this up.)
We
can
debate
the
morals
of
lawyers
but
that’s
for
another
time.
We
do
have
rules
of
professional
conduct.
I
wonder
if
AI
ever
will.
What
does
a
resident
philosopher
at
a
tech
company
do?
Amanda
Askell’s
job
is
to
interact
with
Claude
in
an
effort
to
learn
its
reasoning
patterns
and
build
its
personality.
What?
An
AI
model
with
personality?
Is
that
a
good
thing?
It’s
Askell’s
belief
that
eventually
the
models
will
create
“senses
of
self.”
She
is
teaching
Claude
to
learn
right
from
wrong.
Humans
are
taught
right
from
wrong,
at
least
they
should
have
been,
but
sometimes
that
learning
goes
awry.
That
morality
instruction
can’t
come
too
soon,
as
there
have
been
deaths
in
which
it
is
claimed
that
chatbots
have
somehow
and
in
some
manner
have
been
responsible.
However,
before
delving
into
whether
LLMs
should
have
a
soul
or
at
least
a
moral
compass,
we
still
need
to
stop
the
hallucinations
that
seem
to
hover
over
the
shoulders
of
some
firms.
Hallucinations
are
the
epitome
of
laziness.
And
they
seem
to
be
without
end.
Right
now,
it’s
not
AI
that
needs
a
soul,
although
perhaps
that
would
be
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
But
first,
lawyers
need
to
have
a
soul
or,
at
least
a
conscience,
so
that
when
they
sign
a
pleading,
they
understand
the
consequences.
Ever
wondered
how
you
benchslap
AI?
Meanwhile,
a
report
by
Citrini
Research
is
sobering,
even
frightening,
saying
that
there
may
be
a
“race
to
the
bottom”
for
white-collar
workers,
(i.e.,
us).
The
report
wonders
whether
future
predictions
for
AI
are
not
bullish,
but
bearish. It
used
to
be
that
human
intelligence
was
a
scarce
commodity.
Not
any
more.
Not
with
AI
being
able
to
perform
many
tasks
that
we
used
to
think
only
humans
could
do.
“While
machine
intelligence
will
continue
to
accelerate,
the
premium
on
human
intelligence
will
narrow.”
Swell.
However,
a
New
York
Times
article
says
“not
so
fast.”
It
points
out
that
while
some
fret
about
displacement,
others
think
that
AI
will
be
just
a
tool,
and
not
the
kiss
of
death
for
white
collar
workers.
So,
for
some,
reports
of
AI
taking
over
the
world
may
be
greatly
exaggerated,
at
least
right
now.
Lastly,
remember
the
Magic
8
Ball?
It
answered
questions
in
the
affirmative,
the
neutral
noncommittal,
and
the
flat-out
negative.
Will
AI
replace
lawyers?
The
Magic
8
Ball
is
not
ready
to
answer
that
question
yet.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].