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
© 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 AllWhat to Expect From Teresa Ribera, the EU‘s New Competition Commissioner
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Freshfields Hires SEC Associate Director in Latest D.C. Lateral Hiring Spree
- 2Jury Finds Dentons, Ex-Partner Beats Malpractice Claim Over $54 Million Currency Deal
- 3Former Cahill Executive Committee Member, Leveraged Finance Pioneer Dies at 67
- 4State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
- 5The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
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