But
I
am
Omus.
Emperor
of
Delta
Three.
I
don’t
want
to
hear
any
more.
I
don’t
think
I
even
know
you;
you’re
some
sentimental
old
fool
who
doesn’t
understand
anything.
I,
I
am
the
world
of
the
future,
you’re
back
in
some
dark
past.
People
are
no
longer
necessary. —
H.G.
Wells,
“The
Shape
of
Things
to
Come”
Just
because
something
has
always
been
so
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
it
always
will
be.
Take
the
traditional
law
firm
with
partners,
associates,
and
a
slew
of
support
staff.
Is
that
really
the
model
for
the
future?
Or
is
that
just
a
sentimental
view
from
the
dark
past
that’s
no
longer
necessary?
I
read
an
article
recently
about
a
legal
tech
start
up
that
announced
it
was
launching
an
independent
law
firm
that
would
offer
“AI-native”
legal
services.
The
legal
tech
company,
Norm
Ai, focuses
primarily
on
compliance
work.
It
claims
it
can
turn
“regulations
into
AI
agents
…
that
can
make
compliance
determinations”
according
to
its
website.
The
law
firm,
Norm
Law
LLP,
will
use
Norm’s
AI
tools
to
do
legal
work
for
Blackstone
(a
Norm
Ai
investor)
and
other
financial
service
clients.
According
to
the
article,
the
law
firm
will
offer
alternative
legal
services.
Lawhive
And
Woodstock
Some
time
ago,
I
wrote
about
the
acquisition
of
a
law
firm
in
the
UK
by
a
legal
tech
company.
The
idea
was
that
the
firm
would
become
more
or
less
an
“AI
first”
law
firm,
handling
most
matters
with
AI
tools.
The
firm
would
use
the
technology
developed
by
the
tech
company
to
achieve
these
ends.
That
deal
involved
Lawhive,
a
legal
tech
company
buying
a
law
firm,
Woodstock.
I
wondered
about
the
impact
of
this
development
and
whether
it
would
be
the
shape
of
things
to
come
as
legal
tech
companies
began
to
discover
they
can
play
a
greater
role
(and
take
a
greater
share
of
the
profits)
by
owning
law
firms
that
do
the
work
with
AI
tools
or
even
doing
the
legal
work
themselves.
Norm
Ai
The
Norm
Ai
deal
is
very
similar
to
that
I
described
in
my
previous
article.
Of
course,
since
Norm
Law
is
a
U.S
firm,
it
has
to
exist
independently
of
Norm
with
no
ownership
interests
by
those
dreaded
“nonlawyers.”
But
that’s
form
over
substance.
Norm
Law
is
Norm’s
law
firm,
using
its
tools
and
no
doubt
being
largely
directed
by
Norm
AI,
just
as
the
Woodstock
firm
is
under
the
control
of
Lawhive.
It’s
Just
The
Beginning
We’ll
see
more
and
more
of
these
arrangements.
The
tech
company
ensures
its
tech
will
be
used
by
the
law
firm.
The
tech
company
can
ensure
that
the
firm
capitalizes
on
AI,
reducing
the
cost
of
personnel
and
overhead.
The
profit
comes
from
the
reduced
cost
of
the
overhead
and
the
ability
to
scale
the
lower
overhead
services
across
a
broad
spectrum.
And
as
AI
gets
more
and
more
sophisticated,
the
role
and
number
of
the
human
lawyers
in
such
arrangements
gets
less
and
less.
These
tech-affiliated
firms
can
thus
offer
cost
advantages
to
their
owners
and
can
leverage
alternative
fee
structures
in
new
and
different
ways.
They
have
an
advantage
over
traditional
slow-moving
large
firms.
They
have
an
advantage
over
standalone
AI-first
law
firms
in
that
they
have
a
steady
client
and
access
to
the
tech
companies’
customers
who
need
legal
services
as
well.
What
Does
This
Mean
For
Lawyers
In
The
Loop?
The
standard
thinking
is
that
we
need
not
worry
our
pretty
little
heads
about
AI
since
there
will
always
be
a
need
for
the
lawyer
in
the
loop.
But
rarely
does
anyone
stop
and
ask
just
what
this
means.
I
noted
in
my
previous
piece
some
thoughts
by
Jordan
Furlong
who
predicts
that
new
era
law
firms
may
offer
and
get
paid
for
output
to
clients
with
no
lawyer
involvement
at
all.
He
added
that
many
of
the
services
provided
by
law
firms
already
can
be
done
by
AI.
In
a
more
recent
LinkedIn
post,
Furlong
wondered
if
the
slew
of
recent
law
firm
mergers
signals
that
Biglaw
is
in
“late
stage
decline
or
experiencing
a
platform
shift.”
All
of
this
is
to
say
that
the
whole
notion
of
lawyer
in
the
loop
will
soon
take
a
different
shape.
Indeed,
the
whole
idea
of
the
Lawhive
and
Norm
Ai
hinges
on
reducing
the
number
of
lawyers
in
the
loop.
Which
is
to
the
benefit
of
the
legal
tech
company
who
can
now
not
only
provide
the
product
but
any
legal
services
that
its
customers
may
need,
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
This,
in
turn,
ties
the
customer
more
and
more
to
the
legal
tech
company
and
its
lawyers.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
And
as
I
mentioned
before,
it’s
only
a
matter
of
time,
regulations
permitting,
that
the
tech
company
just
provides
the
legal
services
itself
and
takes
all
the
profits.
But
What
About
Atrium?
Another
“truism”
is
that
history
shows
these
deals
don’t
work.
And
yes,
it’s
been
frequently
pointed
out
that
a
similar
arrangement
was
tried
by
Atrium
in
2017
and
failed.
Reportedly
the
failure
was
caused
by
the
inability
of
the
law
firm
to
deliver
better
efficiency
than
a
traditional
law
firm.
So,
it
folded
in
2020.
The
argument
therefor
is
the
old
“we
tried
that
before,
and
it
didn’t
work”
refrain.
But
that
was
then
and
now
is
now.
We
have
much
more
sophisticated
AI
tools
that
can
do
much
more.
So,
the
likelihood
of
success
and
continued
expansion
of
these
kinds
of
deals
seems
much
higher.
An
Added
Benefit
There
is
one
significant
benefit
that
these
deals
could
bring.
There
is
a
great
underserved
market
for
legal
services
in
this
country.
Traditional
law
firms
encumbered
with
a
billable
hour
model
and
culture
have
not
figured
out
how
to
tap
this
market.
In
fact,
truth
be
known,
they
haven’t
even
tried.
But
legal
tech
companies
with
captive
AI
first
law
firms
very
well
could.
And
that
could
be
a
financial
bonanza
for
them
and
available
legal
services
for
millions.
The
Risk
And
Cost
But
the
decline
of
the
traditional
law
firm
that
may
be
inevitable
comes
with
a
cost:
the
loss
of
the
human
element
in
the
practice
and
advice
being
offered.
The
ability
to
understand
the
personalities
and
needs
of
the
clients.
The
ability
to
offer
high-end
strategy
and
expertise
across
various
fields
and
the
synergies
that
come
with
it.
The
Challenge
But
that’s
like
saying
horses
are
better
forms
of
transportation
because
they
are
mammals
like
us,
have
personalities,
are
nice
companions,
and
have
soft
hair.
All
of
which
is
true.
But
cars
get
us
where
we
need
to
go
faster
and
more
efficiently,
which
enables
us
to
do
all
sorts
of
other
things.
The
real
challenge
isn’t
recognizing
that
the
traditional
law
firm
model
is
changing.
Indeed,
disruption
always
creates
winners
who
see
opportunities
early.
The
challenge
is
ensuring
legal
services
remain
human
centered
where
they
need
to
be
even
as
they
become
more
automated,
and
that
the
benefits
don’t
accrue
only
to
those
who
can
already
afford
premium
legal
services.
Traditional
firms
can
either
adapt,
or
they
can
continue
maximizing
short-term
distributions
to
wealthy
partners
while
the
market
moves
around
them.
The
choice
seems
obvious.
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.
