Is Legal AI Making Lawyers Dumb? Quite The Contrary
"The value a lawyer brings to their clients is in their legal knowledge, strategy and guidance - not the manual review of documents," says the chief innovation officer of legal technology provider Disco.
July 28, 2020 at 03:45 AM
5 minute read
A recent article on Legal Week raised concerns that AI was damaging or somehow making junior attorneys less competent. While AI is just the latest boogeyman, the fear that technology somehow robs the people wielding it of knowledge and skills is not a new concern. Plato and Socrates famously lamented the written word could have the same effect centuries ago.
The fear of advanced technology is as old as technology itself and is especially prevalent in the practice of law. The law partners quoted in Roberts' article lamented about junior attorneys missing out on a "well-rounded" education or failing to develop key critical thinking skills as a result of replacing manual tasks with AI-powered technology.
I respectfully disagree. Legal AI liberates attorneys from the menial, enabling them to devote more time to developing trial strategy and substantive legal acumen. AI makes attorneys smarter in ways that better suit them for a future practice of law. Learning and employing AI (and, broadly, legal technology) is a skillset that is crucial for lawyers of all experience levels to best serve their clients and keep up with innovative and tech-driven legal teams.
Tech Enables Smarter Decisions
Technology and education have an interesting relationship. Engineering professors in the early '70s banned the first handheld scientific calculator, fearing the tool would become a crutch. But when people are freed from mundane and time-consuming tasks and empowered to think bigger, innovation is the result. We would not be in our current digital era if we were still using a slide rule for scientific calculations. In an era of automation and AI-powered insights, manual skills are less relevant as tech savviness is more impactful.
The telephone, email and computers have all freed attorneys up to focus to their highest calling: the practice of law. AI is no different. The value a lawyer brings to their clients is in their legal knowledge, strategy and guidance — not the manual review of documents.
Creating the modern lawyer
Clients benefit when attorneys leverage technology to quickly surface information and devote more time to case development. In upskilling young attorneys today, the future they are preparing for is fundamentally different from what members of the firm's partnership came of age in. Legal technology is pivotal to adapting to the evolving demands of a digital world.
Modern legal practitioners are faced with navigating a vast digital ecosystem of email, social media, and a myriad of apps to identify and surface evidence and develop strategies for their clients. We generate zettabytes of data each day, and manual approaches cannot keep pace with the volume, variety, and velocity of data.
There is also a fundamental shift in how clients engage. Organizations like Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) and the surge of legal operations roles highlight the increased scrutiny enterprise is placed on outside counsel. A formerly relationship-driven industry, legal practice is increasingly being held to account for delivering efficiency, cost savings, and improved outcomes. AI and legaltech are a key part of that equation.
I am Iron Man, Esq.
The concerns about critical thinking and key skills being replaced by AI does not reflect how AI is integrated in law. We are not talking about autonomous machines, á la Terminator and Skynet, making critical decisions for attorneys. Rather, think of legal AI as more akin to the cutting-edge suit work by Iron Man.
Legal AI empowers lawyers to make more informed decisions in a shorter amount of time, and amplifies those decisions across a vast digital ocean. Much like how handheld calculators freed engineers to creatively innovate and create things like the iPad and self-driving cars, legal automation is giving attorneys time to focus on the substantive and intellectually engaging aspects of law that attracted them to the field.
No, AI is not making lawyers dumb. Rather, it is making them smart in a novel way that is better suited for the future of their legal careers. Data volumes and client expectations are on the rise and older, manual approaches once relied upon to train junior attorneys will neither be paid for by clients nor truly prepare a lawyer for the evolving challenges in the future.
To prepare to become Iron Man, Esquire, junior lawyers must be exposed to and encouraged to master emerging technology including AI. New and experienced lawyers alike need to quit fearing the unknown and embrace AI — their future, and the future of the legal profession, depends on it!
Read More:
Impending Disputes Boom: Firms Should Make Intelligence Providers Work Smarter
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllPallas Partners Founder On the Disputes Trends to Look Out For in 2025
4 minute readWhat to Expect From Teresa Ribera, the EU‘s New Competition Commissioner
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justice Known for Asking 'Tough Questions' Resolves to Improve Civility
- 2Robinson & Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel
- 3'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions
- 4It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times
- 5Class Action Accusing Dave's Killer Bread of Mislabeling Protein Contents Cleared to Continue, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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