It’s
high
time
to
reconsider
whether
the
old
training
by
osmosis
approach,
the
learning
by
hanging
around
the
water
cooler
notion,
is
going
to
work
any
longer,
particularly
in
the
age
of
AI.
You
know
the
argument:
let’s
get
their
butts
in
the
office
because
that’s
critical
for
the
training
of
younger
lawyers.
The
idea
is
they
will
come
to
the
office,
hang
around,
bump
into
a
senior
partner
at
the
water
cooler
and
somehow
absorb
some
great
truths
about
the
practice
that
they
wouldn’t
otherwise
get.
But
what
actually
happens
is
a
bit
different.
The
associate
comes
to
the
office,
goes
to
their
personal
space,
closes
the
door
and
works.
They
might
come
up
for
air
here
and
there
and
get
a
cup
of
coffee
but
that’s
only
for
a
moment.
Then
it’s
back
to
the
grindstone.
And
the
partners
are
doing
the
same,
all
in
pursuit
of
billing
hours
to
meet
artificial
quotas
set
by
firm
management.
The
Impact
Of
AI
And
that
was
before
AI.
I
read
a
recent
article
in
Business
Insider
by
Aki
Ito
that
talked
about
the
impact
of
AI
on
work
and
in-office
collaboration.
The
point
of
the
article
was
that
the
things
for
which
workers
used
to
seek
out
colleagues
to
get
help
with
or
to
run
by
is
now
done
by
AI.
Instead
of
going
next
door
and
talking
through
a
problem,
workers
just
ask
ChatGPT
—
or
its
equivalent
—
for
answers.
That
is
dramatically
reducing
the
amount
and
nature
of
worker
interaction.
And
these
interactions
are
valuable.
As
a
practicing
lawyer,
I
would
often
run
ideas
by
colleagues
even
if
it
was
just
to
hear
my
proposals
and
ideas
out
loud.
Many
times
I
would
get
halfway
through
my
spiel,
stop,
and
say
never
mind.
Because,
in
speaking
it
out
loud,
I
realized
it
wasn’t
all
that
great.
Moreover,
according
to
the
article
and
some
studies
it
cites,
the
less
actual
interactions,
the
less
workers
trust
their
human
colleagues.
And,
sadly,
that
workers
are
turning
to
AI
rather
than
colleagues
for
performance
feedback.
The
fabric
of
work,
where
we
at
least
get
to
talk
to
other
people
about
our
problems
or
even
just
to
vent,
is
unraveling.
And
that
talking
(and
venting),
says
the
article,
was
what
made
work
more
tolerable
and
meaningful.
It
made
for
a
happier
work
environment.
It’s
All
The
More
Problematic
For
Lawyers
All
of
this
is
a
particular
problem
for
lawyers
and
particularly
litigators.
I’m
fond
of
pointing
out
something
one
of my
client
representatives
used
to
say:
let’s
be
careful
we
don’t
end
up
in
the
closet
talking
to
ourselves
too
much.
He
meant,
of
course,
that
we
need
to
say
things
to
one
another
and
get
feedback
from
others
to
create
the
best
product.
For
litigators
and
trial
lawyers,
our
best
product
and
the
most
persuasive
arguments
are
those
that
resonate
with
other
humans.
What
better
way
to
get
that
resonating
product
than
by
talking
to
human
colleagues
and
getting
their
views.
Or
just
seeing
their
reaction:
what
did
their
body
language
suggest?
Were
they
bored?
Did
they
understand
the
argument
being
made?
Did
it
move
them?
These
are
human
reactions.
They
can’t
be
replaced
by
a
bot
that
all
too
often
tells
us
what
we
want
to
hear.
And
these
interactions
are
indeed
important
to
younger
lawyers.
When
I
was
a
first-
or
second-year
associate,
I
would
often
seek
advice
from
a
more
senior
associate
or
even
administrative
staff
on
how
to
do
things.
For
background.
To
review
some
idea
I
had.
To
understand
the
idiosyncrasies
of
the
firm
or
a
particular
partner.
It
was
how
I
and
many
younger
lawyers
learned.
And
by
doing
multiple
drafts
for
exacting
senior
partners,
I
learned
how
to
write
persuasively
and,
indeed,
the
sometimes
laborious
process
of
creating
good
work
product.
But
wait,
you
say.
Didn’t
you
start
off
by
saying
that
having
young
lawyers
come
to
the
office
was
not
particularly
worthwhile.
That’s
not
exactly
what
I
meant.
My
point
was
that
having
young
lawyers
come
to
the
office
without
more
doesn’t
necessarily
teach
them
anything.
And
now
with
AI,
the
lack
of
teaching
and
training
will
be
even
worse.
As
the
Business
Insider
article
pointed
out,
we
are
all
forsaking
human
work
interactions
due
to
the
siren
call
of
AI.
The
old
way
was
easy.
It
didn’t
require
thought,
planning,
and
analysis.
Or
time.
But
it’s
not
going
to
work
anymore.
If
we
demand
everyone
come
to
the
office
and
then
let
them
float
in
an
AI
world
with
their
office
doors
closed
and
heads
down,
we
will
end
up
with
associates
with
heads
full
of
mush.
What
Can
We
Do
Most
importantly,
as
with
any
problem,
we
have
to
start
by
recognizing
that
we
actually
have
a
problem.
We
have
to
admit
that
the
old
notion
that
informal
interactions
at
the
water
cooler
will
adequately
train
younger
lawyers
will
no
longer
work.
It
was
a
myth
before
AI
and
it’s
certainly
a
myth
now.
Then,
we
have
to
work
to
replace
the
informal
water
cooler
with
more
formal
and
designed
training
that
creates
the
opportunities
for
interaction
between
associates
and
between
associates
and
partners.
Structured
training
ensures
that
training
will
actually
happen
and
that
all
will
get
the
training,
not
just
those
who
are
lucky
enough
to
be
at
the
water
cooler
at
the
right
time.
We
have
to
set
aside
the
myopic
focus
on
billable
hours
and
commit
to
nonbillable
time
to
create
the
training
and
the
interactions
that
are
needed.
Lastly,
we
have
to
recognize
that
AI,
while
it
provides
tremendous
opportunities
for
younger
lawyers
and
for
all
of
us,
can’t
be
left
in
a
vacuum.
Showing
younger
lawyers
how
and
why
AI
outputs
are
wrong
or
don’t
fit
the
situation
at
hand
is
important.
This
requires
greater
mentoring
and
thought
on
the
part
of
management
and
partners.
And
for
partners,
they
themselves
have
to
search
out
the
kinds
of
interactions
with
each
other
I
experienced
and
described.
They
have
to
recognize
the
value
of
AI
along
with
the
value
of
the
human
interactions
to
create
the
great
product
and,
for
that
matter,
a
better
work
environment.
Otherwise, when
it
comes
down
to
persuading
other
humans,
which
is
the
heart
of
our
business,
our
arguments
will
sound
like
they
came
from
AI
and
won’t
be
convincing.
Nor
will
it
create
and
further
the
trust
which
is
at
the
heart
of
a
good
attorney-client
relationship.
They
will
sound
like
what
they
are:
something
that
came
from
AI,
not
our
hearts.
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.