What junior lawyers need to know about artificial intelligence
AI is creating huge opportunities – but it's important for junior lawyers to appreciate how such technology will impact their careers
July 13, 2018 at 03:59 AM
4 minute read
A recent survey by LexisNexis revealed that about 75% of lawyers recognise that the sector is changing faster than ever – yet only about one in five of those surveyed agree that their own firm needs to evolve.
So, what's behind this apparent paradox? Do 80% of the survey respondents really work for firms that are already at the cutting edge of the profession? Or are they just complacent? And what are the implications for newly qualified lawyers embarking on their careers?
Probably the biggest single driver of change in the industry is the increasing advance of technology. Everyone has read about the perceived threat of artificial intelligence (AI) and how it is set to take lawyers' jobs – and although Michael Skapinker of the Financial Times wrote recently that, like plumbers, lawyers are not yet approaching their 'Uber' moment and remain largely a "disruption-free profession", other commentators take a slightly different view.
Richard Susskind, for one, might disagree – having written in his book Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future: "AI will disrupt not just the world of practising lawyers but also our common perception of the legal process."
I am more inclined to the latter point of view, and although the profession may be some years away from being affected by technology to quite the same extent as the taxi industry, changes are certainly afoot that newly qualified lawyers need to be aware of early in their careers.
It's important to note that AI isn't something to be afraid of; adopted in the right way, it will enable lawyers to perform their work more effectively. It's clearly crucial in any law firm or corporate legal department for work to be resourced appropriately – and if some of this work can be done by a machine more quickly and more efficiently than by a human, then of course that option should be considered.
Lawyers embarking on their career can make an important investment in their future by equipping themselves with knowledge, not just of how AI works, but also how and when it can be best utilised. For example, algorithm-driven automation and data analytics can allow lawyers to 'productise' their performance of high-volume tasks and judgement-driven processes – creating better, faster and cheaper delivery of legal services.
It's also critical to be aware of the various types of AI to utilise – and there are certainly plenty to choose from. In fact, according to The Inhouse Counsel's LegalTech Buyer's Guide, published by LawGeex, the number of legal technology companies has increased by 65% in the past year.
Providers being considering by many firms include ROSS Intelligence, which uses IBM Watson to help lawyers perform legal research using natural language search, and also provides a tool that checks cited case law to determine if it is still good law – a task that traditionally took lawyers many hours to perform. Another leading provider is Onit, an 'enterprise legal management' solution that automates business processes and builds improved workflows, creating tremendous gains in efficiency. The areas of legal practice in which technology can be deployed are many and varied – from contract drafting and management to e-discovery, legal research, due diligence and IP.
If anything, AI and other associated technologies are creating huge opportunities – especially for younger lawyers – but it's important for those who are newly qualified not only to recognise those opportunities but also to appreciate how the job is changing. It's a natural evolution that has taken place in many other professions – tasks that can be automated generally are automated, sooner or later – and clients naturally want to see law firms adapting and ensuring efficient delivery.
The new lawyers of today are the managing partners and general counsel of tomorrow, and although some commentators may assert that the profession is disruption-free, an increasing body of evidence does suggest the contrary. As the American media mogul Ryan Kavanaugh once said: "The key is to embrace disruption and change early. Don't react to it decades later. You can't fight innovation."
Jeffrey Catanzaro is vice-president of the legal business solutions team at UnitedLex, and advises on the assessment, acquisition and implementation of legal technology to enhance professionals' lives (rather than ushering in the robot takeover).
- Click here for more from Legal Ladder, our dedicated careers blog to help lawyers and recruiters keep abreast of the key issues facing the profession
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNuix Discover Named a Leader in SoftwareReview's eDiscovery Solutions Data Quadrant for the Second Consecutive Year
Trending Stories
- 1Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 2Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
- 33rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 4Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 5Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250