I
recently
finished
reading
Ethan
Mollick‘s
excellent
book
on
artificial
intelligence,
entitled
Co-Intelligence:
Living
and
Working
with
AI.
He
does
a
great
job
of
explaining
what
it
is,
how
it
works,
how
it
best
can
be
used,
and
where
it
may
be
headed.
Having
thought
a
lot
about
AI’s
potential
impact
on
law,
three
insights
in
the
book
stood
out.
I
will
cover
the
first
of
these
insights,
the
impact
on
legal
skills
in
this
post.
In
my
next
post,
I’ll
explore
the
other
two
insights:
the
need
and
development
of
experts
and
the
fact
that
AI
is
the
worst
today
that
it
will
ever
be.
The
Impact
on
Skills
The
first
point
that
resonated
with
me
is
that
artificial
intelligence
tools
can
take
those
with
poor
skills
in
certain
areas
and
significantly
elevate
their
output.
For
example,
Mollick
cited
a
study
that
demonstrated
that
the
performance
of
law
students
at
the
bottom
of
their
class
got
closer
to
that
of
the
top
students
with
the
use
of
AI.
Interestingly,
the
study
also
found
that
those
with
higher
skill
sets
found
much
less
improvement
in
their
outputs
when
using
artificial
intelligence.
The
study
authors
noted
that
both
findings
have
implications
for
the
practice,
“This
suggests
AI
may
have
an
equalizing
effect
on
the
legal
profession,
mitigating
inequalities
between
elite
and
nonelite
lawyers.”
In
essence,
AI
levels
the
playing
field
when
it
comes
to
abilities
and
possible
expertise.
Anecdotally,
I’ve
heard
many
really
good
lawyers
recently
observe
that
heretofore
opposing
mediocre
lawyers
have
gotten
a
whole
lot
better.
The
Impact
on
Competition
If
Mollick
and
the
study
authors
are
right,
what
does
equalizing
mean
for
legal?
The
legal
market
is
already
highly
competitive,
at
least
for
the
more
profitable
lines
of
business.
There
are
already
too
many
lawyers
chasing
this
business.
The
most
successful
lawyers,
however,
are
still
those
with
the
greatest
skill
and
ability.
Their
level
of
practice
is
much
higher,
and
they
can
command
higher
rates.
They
write
better,
they
are
more
articulate,
and
they
are
more
creative
than
many
other
lawyers.
Much
of
legal
marketing
is
based
on
this
idea.
With
the
advent
of
AI,
however,
this
gap
in
skill
sets
and
expertise
could
very
well
narrow.
The
end
result
will
be
increased
competition
with
the
former
difference
in
skills
becoming
less
relevant.
This
competition
will
give
clients
a
greater
range
of
options
and
correspondingly
lower
the
price
of
services.
A
client
could
perhaps
get
very
much
the
same
result
from
using
a
lower
priced
lawyer.
It
could
create
a
proverbial
race
to
the
bottom.
And
the
quality
of
the
services
provided
to
clients,
across
the
board,
could
increase.
In
the
future
it
may
only
be
in
the
very
narrow
range
of
cases–the
bet
the
company
case–where
a
higher
skill
set
will
commanded
and
justify
a
higher
rate.
This
would
have
profound
implications
for
a
profession
which
is
largely
built
on
the
billable
hour
and
leverage.
It
may
require
that
lawyers
begin
to
differentiate
themselves
in
different
ways.
To
stand
out,
a
lawyer
will
need
to
perhaps
demonstrate
different
skills..
It
remains
to
be
seen
what
new
skills
will
differentiate
lawyers
from
one
another,
although
many
pundits
predict
that
such
things
as
empathy
and
human
relations
may
become
important.
Lawyers
will
need
to
better
understand
their
clients.
And
the
value
for
services
may
need
to
shift
from
the
billable
hour
to
the
value
of
the
service
to
the
client,
as
I
have
discussed
before.
Of
course,
another
possibility
is
that
many
lawyers
will
no
longer
have
the
critical
thinking
processes
necessary
to
solve
complex
legal
and
people
problems.
Overreliance
on
AI
tools
could
create
a
bland,
impersonal
lawyer.
Those
who
use
AI
in
correct
ways
and
do
not
over
rely
upon
it
may
still
have
the
edge.
It’s
Still
a
People
Business
This
competitive
reality
makes
human
skills
even
more
critical.
Lawyers
would
also
be
wise
to
remember
that
bottom-line
lawyering
is
about
communication
and
people
skills.
While
AI
may
improve
communication,
it
will
not
necessarily
improve
people
skills.
Lawyers
still
need
to
understand
how
to
effectively
communicate
with
a
person
with
all
their
warts,
beliefs,
and
bias.
Lawyers
will
still
need
to
apply
what
AI
tells
them
to
the
precise
situation
and
clients
at
hand.
AI
will
not
replace
the
need
for
critical
thinking.
I
once
had
a
client
who
didn’t
seem
to
grasp
the
risks
of
a
particular
case.
When
I
explained
this
to
my
mentor,
he
told
me
that
contractors
live
with
the
risk
of
financial
ruin
on
almost
every
big
project.
The
lawsuit
risk
was
no
different.
That
reframing
completely
changed
how
I
approached
the
client
conversation.
No
amount
of
AI
prompting
could
have
provided
that
kind
of
contextual
insight.
This
kind
of
understanding
and
empathy
will
become
more
important
to
our
clients
than
ever
in
the
new
age
of
AI.
Don’t
Forget
the
Clients
We
also
must
assume
that
clients
will
have
greater
expertise
and
will
rely
more
on
AI
to
understand
their
problems
even
before
they
talk
with
a
lawyer.
This
means
that
the
skill
set
a
lawyer
must
bring
to
the
table
with
a
client
will
not
necessarily
be
the
beginning
expertise
that
can
be
found
in
the
output
of
an
AI
prompt.
It
means
applying
critical
thinking
skills
and
the
human
ability
to
assess
how
the
information
obtained
from
AI
might
apply
to
a
given
problem
and
a
given
client.
For
example,
a
client
might
have
already
researched
contract
law
with
an
AI
tool
when
they
walk
in
your
office.
But
they
still
need
someone
who
can
assess
whether
that
general
advice
applies
to
their
specific
situation,
their
relationships,
and
their
risk
tolerance.
It
is
in
these
areas
where
lawyers
of
the
future
may
be
able
to
differentiate
themselves.
What
Does
this
Mean?
Lawyers
and
law
firms
need
to
begin
thinking
and
planning
for
how
the
coming
skill
equalization
will
impact
competition
and
potentially
profitability.
They
need
to
consider
how
the
value
of
what
they
provide
to
their
clients
will
be
greater
than
their
competition.
They
need
to
start
thinking
about
what
skill
will
set
them
apart
in
the
new
AI
driven
world.
We
may
indeed
soon
be
at
an
inflection
point.
The
question
is
no
longer
whether
this
point
is
coming,
it’s
whether
lawyers
will
adapt
their
value
proposition
before
their
competitors
do.
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.