I
reported
earlier
on
the
Jordan
Furlong
keynote
at
this
year’s
TECHSHOW
and
his
belief
that
there
will
always
be
demand
for
the
“human”
lawyer
who
can
provide
sound
advice,
be
the
advocate
for
their
clients
through
thick
and
thin,
and
who
will
walk
through
the
valleys
with
them.
But
I
wasn’t
sure
what
to
expect
when
the
writer,
podcaster,
and
personality,
Nilay
Patel
took
the
stage
on
Friday
afternoon
for
his
keynote.
His
conclusion
about
the
future
of
lawyers,
though,
was
remarkably
similar
to
Furlong’s.
He
just
took
a
different
route
to
get
there.
In
a
somewhat
disjointed
but
entertaining
keynote,
Patel
told
the
audience
that
the
real
value
lawyers
bring
to
clients
is
something
AI
can’t
bring:
the
ability
to
advise,
listen,
and
guide
them
through
ambiguity
and
lack
of
predictability.
Software
May
Remake
the
Legal
Profession
Make
no
mistake,
Patel,
like
Furlong
before
him,
believes
AI
and
the
software
that
propels
it
will
fundamentally
remake
the
legal
profession.
Patel
believes
that
the
similarities
between
the
creation
of
software
and
computer
engineering
make
law
a
tempting
target
for
disruption.
Law
and
computer
engineering
both
involve
the
use
of
structured
language.
Both
are
based
on
logic.
Both
depend
heavily
on
past
solutions
and
language
to
build
future
solutions.
As
a
result,
Patel
says
there
are
lots
of
similarities
between
law
and
computer
coding.
Add
to
this
the
desperate
get
rich
search
by
vendors
and
whiz
kids
to
use
AI
to
take
over
the
world,
which
suggests
that
much
of
what
lawyers
do
may
be
automated
and
AI
replicated.
What’s
more,
Patel
touched
on
something
I
had
not
thought
of:
vibe
coding
(building
software
through
plain-language
AI
prompts
rather
than
traditional
code)
can
make
everyone
a
coder
and
an
AI
platform
developer.
Software
that
used
to
be
out
of
the
cost
range
of
many
businesses
and,
for
that
matter,
law
firms,
is
now
affordable
and
obtainable
by
everyone.
The
result
is
the
belief
that
more
and
more
legal
work
can
be
brought
to
heel
in
the
brave
new
world
of
GenAI.
That
software
can
replace
almost
everything
lawyers
do.
But
not
so
fast,
says
Patel.
Software
Won’t
Eat
Legal
Before
we
all
start
vibe
coding,
Patel
pointed
out
some
fundamental
differences
between
what
lawyers
do
and
what
AI
can
provide.
Law
is
built
upon
ambiguity,
which
software
abhors.
It’s
deterministic:
try
two
cases
on
the
same
set
of
facts
and
you
could
very
well
get
two
different
results.
And
unlike
software
which
is
often
buggy,
makes
mistakes,
and
is
sometimes
even
shipped
and
sold
without
knowing
for
sure
if
it
will
work,
lawyers
have
to
get
it
right
the
first
time.
Every
time.
Glitches
for
lawyers
are
catastrophic.
A
lawyer
can’t
debug
if
they
get
it
wrong.
Moreover,
says
Patel,
despite
its
propensity
to
be
buggy,
software
and
AI
is
fairly
predictable.
Even
the
fact
that
it
makes
mistakes
is
predictable.
But
what
lawyers
face
is
just
the
opposite:
a
cranky,
disagreeable
judge.
And
the
zenith
of
unpredictability:
a
jury.
A
jury
that
may
be
swayed
by
everything
from
what
a
client
is
wearing
to
unfathomable
body
language.
To
top
it
off,
lawyers
have
adversaries
who
are
searching
for
and
waiting
to
pounce
on
any
slight
mistake
or
faux
pas.
What
does
all
this
mean?
Patel
says
why
we
have
lawyers
is
just
because
of
this
fundamental
ambiguity
and
unpredictability.
Ambiguity
and
unpredictability
that
software
and
AI
have
great
difficulty
understanding
and
dealing
with.
Yes,
I
know.
The
AI
champions
say
just
wait.
AI
will
soon
(if
not
already)
be
able
to
deal
with
ambiguity
and
factor
in
unpredictability.
But
Patel
says
there
is
something
else
to
what
good
lawyers
provide.
A
something
more
that
is
key
to
the
future
of
lawyers.
And
it
came
from
Patel’s
wife.
The
Lawyer
Therapist
Patel’s
wife
is
a
family
lawyer.
He
asked
her
one
time
if
she
was
concerned
that
she
could
be
replaced
by
a
robot.
Her
response
was,
“I’m
actually
as
much
a
therapist
as
I
am
a
lawyer.”
Meaning
that
people
came
to
her
with
very
personal
and
intimate
problems.
What
they
wanted
was
not
just
a
recitation
of
the
law.
They
wanted
someone
to
listen
to
them.
To
let
them
vent.
And
then
take
their
rage,
their
fear,
and
their
desires
and
navigate
all
of
that
through
a
legal
system
that
itself
is
ambiguous
and
unpredictable.
She’s
right.
Over
the
years,
I
learned
that
all
clients
want
is
to
tell
their
side
of
the
story.
They
want
a
lawyer
who
will
listen
to
them
and
take
their
side.
They
need
a
lawyer
to
do
all
that
and
then
tell
them
what
can
be
done
in
a
way
that
assures
them
their
lawyer
is
squarely
on
their
side.
The
lawyer
then
does
just
what
Patel’s
wife
articulated:
navigate
a
tricky
legal
venue.
And
it’s
not
just
true
for
family
lawyers.
I
had
partner
whose
legal
skills
other
lawyers
in
the
firm
scoffed
at.
But
Fred
was
one
of
the
leading
rainmakers
in
the
firm.
Why?
He
never
told
a
client
something
could
not
be
done.
Instead,
he
looked
for
ways
to
accomplish
some
if
not
all
of
what
he
understood
the
client
really
wanted
and
needed.
That’s
why
they
came
to
him.
That
was
certainly
true
for
me.
Indeed,
during
the
Q
and
A
portion
of
Patel’s
talk,
an
in-house
corporate
lawyer
said
the
same
thing.
Clients
want
answers
and
help
from
us,
not
a
regurgitation
of
what
the
law
forbids.
Patel
saw
this.
Furlong
sees
the
same
thing.
Two
bookends
to
the
future
of
law.
It
Ain’t
Easy
But
here’s
the
thing:
it
ain’t
easy.
Being
the
human
lawyer
that
Furlong
described
and
Patel
talked
about
is
hard
to
get
right.
And
it’s
going
to
get
even
harder
as
clients
second
guess
their
lawyer
with
GenAI
tools.
But
AI
software
can’t
do
this
yet,
and
maybe
not
ever.
The
fact
of
the
matter,
says
Patel,
is
that
GenAI
may
talk
and
act
like
a
human,
but
it
neither
is
one
nor
sentient,
despite
what
some
AI
proponents
scream.
The
bottom
line:
for
all
its
unpredictability
and
frustrations,
law
is
still
a
human
business.
A
business
based
on
human-to-human
intersections
and
relationships.
Interactions
and
relationships
that
are
just
as
unpredictable
and
full
of
ambiguity
as
the
law.
And
that,
says
Patel
(and
Furlong),
is
why
there
will
always
be
a
need
for
the
kind
of
lawyer
that
can
give
clients
what
they
really
need.
The
Future
of
Lawyers:
It’s
Just
One
Thing
It’s
a
hopeful
message.
But
Patel
readily
admits
that
software
and
AI
will
change
the
legal
profession
—
and
everything
else,
for
that
matter
—
in
ways
we
can’t
predict.
But
when
asked
what
lawyers
can
do
to
prepare,
he
thought
for
a
minute
and
gave
an
unexpected
answer.
He
said
sit
down
and
think
about
all
the
tasks
you
do
in
a
week.
Then
determine
which
of
those
tasks
are
repetitive.
Those
tasks
will
all
ultimately
be
replaced
by
AI.
The
rest
of
what
you
do
won’t.
Get
really
good
at
those
things.
Which
brings
us
back
to
Furlong’s
human
lawyer.
The
irreplaceable
skills
of
being
not
just
someone
skilled
in
the
law
(which
has
always
been
and
always
will
be
table
stakes),
but
someone
who
can
hold
the
client’s
hand,
who
listens,
who
walks
with
them
every
step
of
the
way,
who
has
their
back
and
interests
at
heart.
Someone
like
my
mentor
who
I
talked
about
in
my
discussion
of
Furlong’s
keynote:
Joe
knew
his
clients
so
well,
he
could
pick
out
a
book
for
them
that
he
knew
they
would
read.
What
Furlong
and
Patel
put
their
fingers
on
is
exactly
what
set
Joe
and
Fred
apart.
It’s
what
has
always
made
good
lawyers
great.
And
it
always
will.
And
no
amount
of
AI
software
will
change
it.
Furlong
and
Patel:
two
remarkable
and
hopeful
bookends
to
an
outstanding
TECHSHOW.
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.