from
Getty)
I
remain
deeply
skeptical
of
the
prospect
that
AI
will
“replace”
lawyers.
The
technology
keeps
making
impressive
inroads
into
legal
work,
but
every
advancement
promises
to
take
tasks
off
an
individual
lawyer’s
plate,
but
not
to
remove
the
lawyer
from
the
process.
It
is,
as
the
AI
gurus
always
say,
just
giving
lawyers
more
time
to
do
the
real
lawyering.
Lawyers
will
certainly
lose
their
jobs
when
a
firm
can
produce
the
same
output
in
half
the
time,
but
that’s
not
really
the
same
as
being
“replaced.”
But
the
problem
with
a
model
that
places
more
importance
of
seasoned
professional
judgment,
is
making
sure
law
firms
have
a
pipeline
of
seasoned
professionals.
Because
despite
Biglaw
partners
thinking
they’ll
live
forever
and
rushing
to
kick
down
the
ladder
to
strand
their
younger
colleagues
in
dead
end
income
partner
roles
outside
the
equity
bounty,
eventually
new
blood
has
to
take
over.
What
will
this
new
blood
look
like
in
an
AI-driven
world?
Over
the
course
of
Legalweek,
this
topic
kept
coming
up.
No
one
seemed
to
have
an
answer.
AI
creates
two
big
problems
for
law
firms,
making
the
development
funnel
both
smaller
and
less
robust.
If
fewer
lawyers
are
required
to
do
the
work,
the
firm
hires
fewer
lawyers.
For
an
industry
based
on
a
glorified
pyramid
scheme,
fewer
junior
lawyers
means
fewer
future
senior
lawyers.
In
the
short-term,
firms
will
bridge
this
gap
with
lateral
hiring,
but
when
everyone
in
the
market
cuts
back,
the
talent
pool
becomes
a
piranha
frenzy.
And
some
firms
are
going
to
show
up
after
the
carcass
is
fully
picked
over.
Some
folks
brush
this
off
by
reminding
us
that
everyone
doesn’t
have
to
go
to
Biglaw
—
which
is
the
“just
cut
back
on
the
avocado
toast
and
you
can
own
a
home”
of
legal.
Of
course,
not
everyone
has
to
go
into
Biglaw,
but
the
lawyer-industrial
complex
requires
a
LOT
of
students
go
into
Biglaw.
Tuitions
must
be
paid.
And
those
public
service
jobs
are
subsidized
by
the
people
willing
to
pay
sticker
prices.
If
the
most
expensive
schools
can’t
necessarily
place
their
graduates
in
top
salary
jobs,
there
will
be
fewer
top-tier
applicants,
which
just
exacerbates
the
problem.
Because
the
law
schools
aren’t
likely
to
shrink…
they’ll
make
their
nut
by
bringing
in
more
students
who
would
otherwise
go
to
less
expensive
schools.
Then
they’ll
come
out
deep
in
debt
with
fewer
jobs
available
to
cover
that
cost.
As
hiring
and
retention
becomes
more
intense,
firms
have
to
grapple
with
teaching
judgment
to
juniors
who
outsource
most
of
their
thought
processes
to
AI.
One
Legalweek
attendee
recounted
the
second-hand
story
of
a
top
litigator
worried
that
she’s
increasingly
seeing
AI-produced
drafts
and
that
her
markups
are
just
being
dropped
back
into
AI
to
make
all
the
changes.
Has
the
junior
actually
learned
anything?
And,
in
some
ways,
this
isn’t
new.
In
past
decades,
a
junior
could
hand
the
markup
to
an
assistant
or
word
processing
department
to
integrate.
But
word
processing
couldn’t
deal
with
that
margin
note
asking
for
more
research
or
giving
general
direction
like,
“rewrite
in
light
of
page
4
comments.”
The
AI
tool
will
actually
take
a
stab
at
that.
And
it’s
not
just
the
act
of
entering
edits
because
the
process
itself
taught
a
lesson.
“We
had
the
one
or
two
partners
that
we
worked
with
a
lot,
and
we
put
together
memos,
and
they
threw
it
back
at
us,
with
a
bunch
of
red,
and
said,
‘what
the
hell
is
this?’”
Oyango
Snell,
Executive
Director
of
CLOC
told
me.
“It
made
us
better
attorneys.
And
it
made
us
better
in
communications.
It
made
us
better
at
how
we
manage
business
affairs
with
clients,
because
we
understood
the
pressures
that
those
partners
were
on
when
they
would
have
to
go
and
interact
with
that
client.”
The
iterative
nature
of
editing
—
turning
that
document
10
times
and
seeing
the
partner
pick
up
on
problems
left
completely
untouched
three
turns
ago
—
taught
lessons
about
prioritization
and
how
an
argument
comes
together
holistically.
When
a
rams
through
all
those
steps
and
puts
out
something
vaguely
finalized
in
one
go…
how
keenly
will
senior
lawyers
engage
in
the
iterative
process?
A
lot
of
thinking
took
place
across
those
turns
—
and
the
interminable
waits
in
between
—
that
doesn’t
necessarily
happen
when
AI
skips
over
those
steps.
I
sometimes
talk
about
AI
as
a
“smart,
yet
clueless
associate”
and
while
that’s
usually
a
warning
not
to
trust
its
research,
it
also
raises
the
prospect
that
partners
could
bypass
the
associates
altogether.
If
the
aforementioned
litigator
really
believes
the
juniors
aren’t
learning
from
the
experience
and
AI
makes
the
changes
faster…
well,
the
partners
have
equal
access
to
ping
the
AI
to
enter
their
changes.
New
research
suggests
Gen
Z
is
dumber
than
the
prior
generation.
They
shouldn’t
shoulder
the
blame
for
this.
There’s
a
lot
going
on
there
—
including
a
pandemic
that
kept
a
bunch
of
them
out
of
class
during
formative
years
—
but
one
area
I’ve
anecdotally
noticed
is
that
these
students
don’t
take
notes.
The
combination
of
technology
and
busybody
helicopter
parenting
gave
rise
to
a
generation
taught
by
Powerpoint
decks
that
schools
could
post
to
keep
parents
unnecessarily
in
the
loop
about
multiplication
tables.
As
a
consequence,
students
just
ask
for
access
to
the
slides
rather
than
write
down
the
information
themselves.
Writing
things
down
improves
memory
and
cognition,
and
this
generation
hasn’t
been
taught
to
do
it.
Lately,
I’ve
started
to
worry
that
AI
in
legal
could
take
on
a
role
similar
to
those
slide
decks.
The
first
generation
—
who
already
have
some
skills
under
their
belts
—
enjoy
the
new
tech
as
perk,
blissfully
unaware
that
the
next
cohort
will
suffer
for
it.
There’s
a
rosy
AI-enhanced
future
for
lawyers,
where
seasoned
professionals
manage
more
matters
than
ever
before
with
AI
doing
all
the
tedious
lifting
while
letting
“lawyers
be
lawyers.”
But
that
future
rests
on
the
idea
that
someone
at
the
top
of
the
pyramid
has
the
training
and
judgment
to
shepherd
the
agent
swarm.
Those
people
are
there
right
now,
but
what
happens
in
10-20
years?
Will
there
be
enough
lawyers
with
enough
know-how
to
get
the
job
done?
That’s
the
question
no
one
seems
ready
to
answer.
Or
even
seriously
grapple
with.
Earlier:
Andrew
Yang
Says
AI
Is
Replacing
Biglaw
Associates,
Which
Is
Great
News
For
Malpractice
Lawyers
Has
AI
Managed
To
Make
Lawyers
Even
Dumber?
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.