Legalweek 2026,
the
massive
trade
show
more
or
less focused
on
Biglaw,
kicked
off
on
Monday,
March
9,
in
New
York. According to
the
organizers,
this
year’s
show
will
attract
some 6,000
registered
attendees
and
over
400
speakers.
That’s
big
by
any
standard.
The
show
kicked
off
with
a
series
of
workshops.
One workshop
track
was,
not
surprisingly, entitled the “AI
workshop.”
The
topics
included
how
AI
is
shaping
the
profession,
how
to
look
at AI ROI,
and how to
lead
and
thrive
in
“the
AI-transformed Legal
Workplace.”
The
sessions
were
led
primarily
by Jeff Reihl of
LexisNexis.
It
was
the
last
of
these workshops,
which
dealt
with
human
advancement with AI
that
offered
some
interesting
insights
into
the
thinking
of lawyers and
legal professionals. Particularly
of
those
in-house and
consultants.
The Legal
GenAI Cliche
The central idea
of the
panel played off the
now cliché concept
that
AI won’t replace lawyers, but
it
may
replace
lawyers
that
don’t
use AI
or
use
it
well. The
idea
seemed
to
revolve
around
the
notion
that those
who
master
AI
and
use it appropriately will
have
more
time
for
strategic
and
critical
thinking.
(Assuming
they
know
how
to
do
that.)
As
workforces
tighten
(since
AI
can
do
more),
it
will
be
these folks who
will
be
left
standing.
Following this
logic,
the
notion
also
seemed
to
be
that the
profession
will
need
completely
different evaluation processes
and
advancement criteria based
in
large
part
on
how
well AI is
being used. As one
panelist
put
it, in
the
future, evaluation
criteria
will
center
around
“who
are
the
best
people using
these
skills.”
In
addition, this
resulting
increased
use
of
AI
will
mean
a
decline
in the specialist
in
legal
and
more
emphasis
on
the
generalist
who
presumably
can
supplement
their
lack
of
training
and
experience
by
using
AI.
All
this
means
of
course
an
emphasis
on
AI all
the
way around.
Too
Much
Kool-Aid?
I
think
there
is
a
little
too
much
AI Kool-Aid being
consumed
right
now. Too
much
GenAI
writing. You
know
what
I
mean:
The
one
sentence
paragraph.
The
room
suddenly
got
quiet
statement.
The
real
question
is
not
this
but
that.
The
dramatic
two
sentence
conclusion.
Etc.
The
problem
is
that
in
the
process of
embracing
GenAI
as
the
be
all
and
end
all we
may
be ignoring a
few
dangers. For
example, I
have
noticed of
late the amount of
AI-written
slop
being
produced is
increasing every
day.
The
problem is
not
only
that it’s clear
that
a
human
didn’t
take
the
time
to
write
this
slop
or
even
edit it but
it’s
also
just
not
very
good
writing.
And if
we
keep emphasizing AI
skills
over
all
else,
this
kind
of
writing
and,
for
that
matter,
thinking,
will
become
the
norm. So
much
so
that
what
we
now
consider
good
writing, and
critical
thinking,
will
no
longer
be
the
standard
by
which
we evaluate.
And
what
is
now
good
will
no
longer
be
considered
good.
We
are
already
facing increased usage
of
AI
because
it’s
so
easy.
Why
take
the
time
to
think through a
problem
when
you
can
just
ask
ChatGPT
to
do
the
work
for
you?
It’s
too
tempting.
I
fear
the
more
we
emphasize
the
need
for
“GenAI
skills”
the
more
we
will also encourage
lazy
thinking.
It’s like
the addition
of
the
word
“at”
at
the
end
of
a sentence.
Good grammar used
to demand that
you never end
a sentencewith
a
preposition. It’s like “where’s
the
coffee
at” replaced “where’s
the
coffee.”
So
much
so
that
good grammar now
sounds,
well,
weird. And similarly thinking
that
GenAI
slop
can replace
expertise
is
dangerous
for
another
reason
as
well.
The
Rise
of
a Mediocre Generalist at
the
Expense
of
Expertise
Moreover,
the
whole
notion
that
we
will
no
longer
need
the
subject
matter
expert
because
AI
can
replace
that
expertise
so
that it’s not
needed
ignores
what
makes you
an
expert.
I
wasn’t
a
good
mass
tort defense lawyer
because
I
read
about
it
on
some
GenAI
output.
I
was
good
because
I
lived through several
cases.
I
knew
from experience what
would
happen.
I
saw
patterns
and similarities in
how
people
would
react.
Do
we
really
think
that
can
be
replaced
with
a
prompt that
gets a GenAI
answer with
some
platitude? The
end
result:
mediocrity
at
the
expense
of
real
expertise.
Something
else:
those
who
are
advocating
for
an
increased
emphasis
on
greater
AI
skills
and
training
and
a corresponding
emphasis
on advancement
based on
those skills are
already
good
lawyers.
They
didn’t
become
what
they
are
by relying
on
AI. They
have critical thinking
and
writing
skills
that
were
developed
pre-AI. So, I
fear
they
have
forgotten
how
those
skills
were
honed.
In
fact,
we
may
be
ignoring
the
rule
of
unintended
consequences.
Overemphasizing GenAI
skills
and
use
risks
dragging
everyone
down
to
the
mediocre.
And
the mediocre
becomes
more
accepted than
the
good.
And
the
good
is
lost
and
replaced
in
the
process.
That’s
the
risk.
So
What
Can
Be
Done?
Make
no
mistake:
I’m
not
an
anti-AI
curmudgeon.
But
I
am
a
realist
and
what
I’m
seeing
is
a
proliferation
and
acceptance
of
GenAI-generated
stuff.
That
worries
me
since
right
now
it’s
humorous
but
tomorrow
it
may
be
accepted.
Practicing
law
well
is
exacting
and,
frankly,
hard.
It
means
reading
the
cases,
it
means
good,
thoughtful
writing
and
editing.
It
means
using
judgment
honed
over
time.
It
takes
time
and
energy.
Practicing
mediocre
law,
on
the
other
hand,
is
easy
and
sloppy.
Instead
of
focusing
on
how
to train
younger lawyers on
how
to
use
GenAI,
maybe
we do
something different: let’s first define
and
then emphasize what
and how
to
be a good
lawyer. Skills like
problem
solving.
Understanding
clients.
Listening. Resilience.
Knowing
the
law.
Thinking critically. We
can’t expect
good
lawyering
by saying go
use
AI
and then
just
rewarding that
use
if
we
don’t
first
define
and
develop
those
skills.
If
we
start
there
and
then
figure
out
how
GenAI
can
enhance
those
skills,
we
may
end
up
with
lawyers with
the
skill
of those
who
are
now
talking
about
what
needs
to
change.
To quote
ChatGPT: “Practicing
law
well
is
hard.
Practicingmediocre
law
is
easy.
The
real
question
for
lawyers
is
which
path
they
are
willing
to
choose.”
Classic
GenAI
line. Sigh.
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.