Like
the
swallows
returning
to
Capistrano,
every
year,
someone
will
predict
the
demise
of
the
billable
hour,
and
every
year
we
all
smugly
dismiss
their
naiveté.
Lawyers
cannot
change!
The
model
is
too
entrenched!
Clients
will
never
go
for
it!
Be
gone
from
us
with
your
silly
“hot
take.”
But
here’s
the
thing…
the
Capistrano
swallow
population
isn’t
as
predictable
anymore.
The
population
has
dwindled
over
the
years
and
the
culprit
is
modern
development
(specifically
new
construction
that
reduced
the
local
insect
population
if
you’re
a
nerd
and
wanted
to
know
why).
Like
those
birds,
law
firms
aren’t
going
to
give
up
their
routine
on
a
whim,
but
must
when
they’re
forced
into
it
by
slamming
headfirst
into
the
full-length
window
of
technology.
Which
is
all
a
round
about
way
of
placing
myself
in
the
oft-mocked
role
of
announcing
the
looming
demise
of
the
billable
hour.
I
take
on
this
task
fully
aware
of
the
historic
recalcitrance,
but
assured
of
one
unassailable
truth:
lawyers
really
like
money.
A
new
white
paper
from
DISCO
surveying
112
legal
professionals
reveals
an
industry
coming
to
grips
with
the
need
to
adopt
generative
AI
—
somehow
—
or
risk
becoming
the
Blockbuster
Video
of
the
Am
Law
rankings.
Some
43
percent
of
the
law
firm
participants
felt
pressure
from
leadership
to
adopt
AI.
For
in-house
legal
departments,
the
number
climbed
to
64
percent.
Of
course,
like
every
other
industry,
legal
still
has
to
consider
exactly
what
this
technology
can
do
other
than
make
them
the
butt
of
Above
the
Law
jokes,
but
lawyers
are,
furtively,
figuring
out
the
right
use
cases.
“People
realize
that
generative
AI
is
here
and
that
you
need
to
adapt
or
die,
so
there
is
no
resistance
from
people
who
want
to
stay
employed;
they
are
adapting,”
concluded
one
respondent
who
has
fully
internalized
the
bleak,
dystopian
hell
of
late
stage
capitalism.
Bringing
us
to
the
billable
hour
problem
waiting
around
the
bend.
The
billable
hour,
the
beautiful,
terrible
engine
powering
Biglaw
since
the
names
behind
the
most
prestigious
law
firms
in
the
world
were
busy
fighting
integration,
isn’t
exactly
designed
for
a
world
where
document
review
takes
minutes
instead
of
weeks.
“There
is
also
a
billing
issue
because
the
premise
that
speed
will
reduce
revenue
remains
a
challenge,”
notes
the
report.
It’s
a
challenge
that
isn’t
going
away
unless
law
firms
radically
change
their
business
model.
How
do
these
law
firms
make
so
much
money?
For
some
it
might
be
crime,
but
let’s
stick
to
the
firms
where
it’s
leverage.
It’s
sitting
atop
a
pyramid
scheme
of
junior
lawyers
billing
out
$550/hour
to
do
300
hours
a
month
on
menial
tasks
in
exchange
for
a
vague
promise
to
consider
their
equity
partnership
bids
down
the
road
and
then
yanking
the
rug
out
and
making
them
permanent
senior
associates.
That
falls
apart
when
a
vendor
provides
an
AI-driven
point
solution
that
handles
that
work.
An
important
semantic
aside:
AI
won’t
replace
young
lawyers,
but
it
will
mean
firms
need
a
lot
fewer
of
them.
Even
in
the
eDiscovery
space
—
one
of
the
areas
where
AI
is
best
suited
to
take
on
a
huge
bundle
of
the
tasks
typically
handled
for
juniors,
the
report
notes,
“While
there
is
increasing
confidence
in
using
GenAI
tools
for
large-scale
legal
reviews,
lawyers
still
see
an
ongoing
need
for
human
verification,
prompt
creation
and
oversight
to
get
the
most
out
of
the
technology
while
being
able
to
responsibly
manage
it.”
Because,
despite
the
messianic
claims
of
the
Silicon
Valley
bros
shoveling
VC
cash
into
a
furnace
to
make
bots
that
hallucinate
1
percent
less,
AI
simply
isn’t
capable
of
replacing
the
broad
range
of
judgment
even
the
lowliest
of
associates
provides.
But
it
can
empower
the
lowliest
of
associates
to
cover
the
work
previously
handled
by
several
associates.
And
when
the
lawyers
at
the
bottom
rack
up
fewer
hours
per
client
and
the
base
of
the
whole
pyramid
contracts,
there
are
only
three
ways
to
get
that
money
back.
Remembering,
again,
that
our
lodestar
remains:
lawyers
really
like
money.
They
can
“get
more
clients
and
do
more
work!”
a
business
strategy
that
reads
less
like
a
global
law
firm
and
more
like
“what
the
underpants
gnomes
taught
me
about
B2B
marketing.”
There
are
segments
in
the
legal
market
—
specifically
the
small
to
mid
market
—
where
efficient
firms
can
replace
revenue
by
serving
presently
unmet
legal
needs.
But
there’s
a
limit
and
at
the
top
of
the
food
chain,
where
clients
already
maximize
their
legal
use
cases,
this
is
a
fanciful
plan.
They
can
charge
a
whole
lot
more
per
hour.
This
is
the
infamous
$10,000/hour
claim
floated
earlier
this
year.
It
could
replace
the
revenue,
but
are
there
any
clients
with
the
appetite
to
report
that
they’re
paying
someone
$10,000/hour?
Bringing
us,
inevitably,
to
rethinking
the
billable
hour.
It’s
one
thing
to
tell
the
market
that
you’re
spending
$10,000/hour
and
quite
another
to
say,
“we
had
been
spending
X
on
annual
M&A
services
and
we’re
still
paying
X
on
annual
M&A
services.”
If
firms
begin
value
pricing
specific
tasks,
they
can
hand
clients
bills
that
unmoored
from
hours
that
keep
the
revenue
constant.
Clients
will
yelp
about
wanting
to
enjoy
the
fruits
of
AI
efficiency,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
they’ll
suck
up
the
cost
of
legal
services
like
they
always
do.
This
is
the
only
path
for
Biglaw
that
makes
any
sense.
To
revisit
an
earlier
quote
with
a
slightly
less
cynical
spin,
will
firms
realize
that
generative
AI
is
here
and
that
they
need
to
adapt
or
die?
Because
while
on
the
surface
that
quote
spoke
to
lawyers
who
wanted
to
stay
employed
adapting,
it’s
equally
if
not
more
true
for
firms
that
want
to
stay
in
business.
It’s
possible
to
learn
to
coexist
with
modernity,
but
it
takes
adaptation.
Look
at
the
swallows
who
are
now,
finally,
returning
to
Capistrano.
They’ve
found
a
way
to
thrive
even
without
the
same
diet
they
enjoyed
for
decades.
How’s
that
for
a
heavy
handed
metaphor?
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.