A
tech
entrepreneur’s
12-minute
rant
on a
recent Law Punx
podcast
cuts through
legal
AI
marketing
nonsense.
Antti Innanen,
who
founded
Dot. after
practicing
law
for
several
years, said
what I have
been
thinking:
the
idea
that
AI
will
free
us
all
up
to
do
high-end
strategic
work
is
mostly
bullshit.
This
notion
masquerading
as
a
truism sounds good. We like
it.
We want it
to be
true. It
alleviates
the need
to
worry
about
what
AI
is
doing
to
our
profession. It
assures
we
will
all
have
jobs
in
the future gazing
out
the
window
and
thinking
all
day.
And
getting
paid
vast
sums
of
money
to
do
so. It’s in
every
press
release
and
white
paper
from
vendors.
But
I’ve
been
saying
for
some
time
that
the
future
is
not
all
that
rosy.
That this
truism
is fundamentally flawed.
So
I
was
pleased
to
listen
to
an
interview
of Antti Innanen on Law Punx. Innanen
is
a
tech entrepreneur who
has
founded several companies.
More
importantly,
like
me, Innanen actually
practiced law
for
several
years.
He
(and
I) knows what
it
means
to
be
a
lawyer.
We
know what
lawyers actually
do day
in
and
day
out. And
like
me,
he
thinks
the
idea
that
AI
and
automation
will
free
us
all
up
to
do
the high-end work
is,
to
be
blunt,
mostly
bullshit.
The Innanen “Rant”
In
a roughly 12-minute
“rant”
as
he
called
it, Innanen made
the
following realistic key
points:
• The
reality
is
that
most
legal
work
is
just
work.
It’s
not
tedious, it’s not high-end strategic
stuff.
It’s
just
regular
work.
What
happens
when
it’s
replaced?
• Even
if
you
accept
the
premise
that
you
can
separate
the
strategic
work
from
the
regular
work,
what
happens
to
the
lawyers
with
time
on
their
hands?
• High-end strategic
work
is
hard.
It
takes
incredible
focus
and
an absence of distractions. You
can’t
do
it
eight
hours
a
day,
day
in
and
day
out.
• Most high-end strategic
work
will
go
to
the specialists
in
their
fields.
The senior partners.
It’s
not
going
to
go
to
the
associates
or midlevel lawyers.
• The
reality?
There
is
not
an infinite queue of high-level
work
waiting
for
us.
What
will
happen
when
the
tedious
and
regular
work
is
gone
and
those
without
the
capabilities
to
do
the high-end work
have
little
to
do?
• If
we
truly
believed
the
truism,
then
we should be
racing
to
develop
the
necessary skills
in our workforce.
We
should
all
be
learning
how
to
do
the strategic work
since
that’s
all
we
may
have
left.
But
we
aren’t.
We
aren’t
in
law
schools
or
in
law
firms.
• We can’t trust
the
vendors
who
constantly
spout
the
truism
in
effort
to
allay
fears
and
sell products.
The
only
reason
they
aren’t
offering
products
that
can
do
strategic work
now
is
that
the
tools
aren’t
there
yet.
But
the
minute
they
are, rest
assured vendors
will
start trumpeting them.
The
truism
is
not
a
moral
or
ethical
commitment
on
their part; it’s just
a
technical
limitation.
Innanen believes
we
should
be asking hard
questions instead
of resorting to platitudes that make
us
feel
secure
and
safe.
Nobody,
he
says,
is
talking
about
what’s
good
for
the
profession. Instead, we
are
focusing
on
things
like
how
to
write
better
prompts
and
features.
Innanen’s observations
aren’t
just
theoretical
complaints.
They
reflect
fundamental
economic
realities
we’re
ignoring. These are
scary
observations
and
uncomfortable
questions
that
few
are
asking.
But
I’ve
been
saying roughly the
same
thing
for some
time.
Reality Number
One
Here’s
the
reality. Law
firms
built an economic
powerhouse
around
a
simple
formula:
more
associates
billing
more
hours
equals
higher
profits. That’s
why
firms
impose 2,000-hour
minimums
and
hire
first-year
classes
by
the
dozens.
But
this
model
depends on there being
work
to
do.
And
like Innanen says,
much
of
that
work
is
just
work.
Some
of
it
is
tedious,
much
of
it
is
boring.
But
most
is
billable.
But much of
it
will
become
non-billable
or
at
least
not
billable
in
the
way
it
is
now.
The
reality
is
we won’t need
that
many lawyers. The
reality
is
the
leverage
model
won’t
work
when
AI
does
the regular work. That’s an economic reality we
need
to
accept
and
plan
for.
But
law
firm
management
focuses
on
costs
and
distributing
the
maximum
amount of
partner
profits
at
year’s end.
Reality
Number
Two
The
second
reality
is
that
not
that
many
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
good at the strategy stuff.
Look
at
any
law
firm:
there
are
superstars
that
bring
in
business
and
power
the
machine.
Why?
Because
they
are
by
and
large
the
ones
who
can
do
the strategic stuff.
They
can
see
solutions
to
thorny
problems.
They
are
innovative
thinkers.
That’s
why clients flock
to
them.
But
then
there
is
the
great
mass
of lawyers in
firms
who
don’t
bring
in
the
work,
who
don’t
come
up
with
the
strategies and
thinking
that clients need.
These
lawyers
play
supportive
roles.
Why?
Because
they
aren’t
good
at
visioning
and
strategizing.
Or
they
don’t
want
to
do
it and are
comfortable
where they
are.
That’s
why we have
things
like
nonequity
partners.
Or
those
who
aren’t
on equity partner tracks.
These
are
the grinders
and
minders that
do
the regular work Innanen talks
about.
But
what
will
they
do
when
that
regular
work
is
gone?
The high-end strategy work
is
already
being
done
by
others.
And there’s not
an
endless
supply
of
it
in
any
event. Clients aren’t
going
to
pay
for
high-end
thinking
that
doesn’t
solve problems.
Certainly, it
is
true
that
for
some
lawyers,
getting
the
freedom
to
do high-end
thinking
will
improve
their output and service
to their
clients.
Ask
any
good
lawyer
if
they
have time to
do
all
they
could
to
help
solve
their clients’ problems and
they
will
tell
you emphatically no.
But
those
are
the high-end talented
lawyers
who
are adapt at strategy,
not
the
lawyers
doing
Innanen’s
regular
work.
So even
if
the
idea
is
sound,
we
aren’t
planning
for
what
it
really
means.
The Training Conundrum
There’s
another fundamental problem
with
the truism.
As Innanen notes,
we
aren’t
training
people
to
step
into
the
new
roles. So, all
those
who
have
done
the
regular
work
for
years
have
no
training
to
do
what
will
be
in
demand,
even
if
you
accept
the
idea
that
there will
be
this
great
amount
of
strategic
work
to
do.
Another problem:
being
able
to
do
high-end
work
requires
critical
thinking
skills.
It requires experience and
seeing patterns
that
can
be
extended
into
new
situations.
Yet
today
much
of
that experience is
dwindling
as
AI
and
automation
does more
and
more.
So
even
if
you
believe
that
AI
can
never
do
strategic
thinking
(I
don’t),
you
are
looking
at
a
future
where
we
have
a
bunch
of
lawyers
who
no
longer
think
like
lawyers
but
like
lawyer
bots.
The
Challenge
I
wholeheartedly agree
with Innanen that
law
firms
and
the
profession
better
start
asking
the
hard
questions
about
AI
instead
of
racing
to
get
the
newest
and shiniest new
addition.
We
need
to
stop
getting
AI
tools
just
to
say
we
have
them.
We
need
to
think long
and
hard
about
where
we
are
going.
Innanen’s right when
he says lawyers are
like
cockroaches, we’re
survivors.
But
cockroaches
adapt
and
evolve.
They
don’t
spend
decades
doing
the
same
thing
while
their
environment
transforms
around them.
We need
to
start
asking
questions
of
ourselves
and
AI
vendors
that
are
uncomfortable.
Questions like
what
does
it
mean
for
our
workforce
when
what
they
do
will
be
automated?
What
new
skills
should
we
be
developing
in
our
workforce?
What
will
our
business
model
look
like
when
the
leverage
model
is
gone, replaced largely
by
AI?
And
maybe
most
importantly,
what
will
it
mean
to
be
a
lawyer
and
legal
professional
in
the
future?
What
will
our
new
value
proposition
be?
Let’s start
asking
hard
questions
instead
of
business
as usual.
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.