Legal Industry—While Lagging With AI—Sees Benefits of Its Use
A new Brookings Institution report shows the impact of AI on the legal industry, which sees the advantages from its application.
November 27, 2019 at 02:49 PM
3 minute read
If you're preparing for the day when you walk into a lawyer's office and are greeted by a robot offering legal advice, you'll have to wait a bit longer.
According to the new "What Jobs Are Affected by AI?" report from the Brookings Institution, the legal industry is the least exposed to AI.
Still, AI-backed advanced analytics, legal research and document creation are removing some human-powered tasks while also allowing lawyers to improve their counseling and work more creatively.
"I think as a general matter people freak out about AI and they overreact and they panic," said Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law Houston professor whose expertise includes the intersection of law and technology. "The short answer is that computers won't replace lawyers. They'll simply assist them in different ways."
AI software will most likely automate document review and routine contract creation and allow lawyers to perform less "drudge" work, said Jackson Lewis principal and national e-discovery counsel Ralph Losey.
"They are already making AI that can create these contracts. I understand what lawyers do, it's not all that special, it doesn't require creativity or real thinking but a logic game of putting things together," Losey noted. Instead of performing those routine tasks as AI adoption increases, most lawyers will supervise and review the AI-backed software's results, he said.
However, the growing adoption of AI in the profession could lead to fewer paralegals, administrative assistants and associates. Indeed, the Brookings report noted, "While lawyers may still make the ultimate decisions, lower-level researchers and paralegals may see their ranks dwindle as AI saves firms time and improves accuracy."
In turn, a smaller fraction of lawyers will solve clients' challenges by pairing advanced analytics with the traits AI software doesn't have, such as interpersonal and creativity skills, Losey added.
Spencer Fane partner John Browning agreed the amount and types of work available for some entry-level associates may decline, and he noted any lawyer reluctant to embrace technology could be replaced.
"Lawyers that don't adopt AI where appropriate as AI adoption becomes more commonplace is going to find themselves on the outside looking in," Browning said.
He explained the push for greater AI adoption will come from outside the law firm. "It's largely client-driven, the clients we represent may be using various technology. They are going to look to their outside counsel to share that same mindset."
But, Browning doesn't think the need for tech-created efficiency and speed will replace the specialties of a human lawyer.
"I think it's exaggerated. I'm not ready to kneel to our robot overlords yet," he said.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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