Could Attorneys Be Replaced by Robots in the Future?
In the not too distant future, will robots be capable of performing the jobs of the vast majority of the readers of this article? A recent study performed by The Boston Consulting Group, "The Shifting Economics of Global Manufacturing: How a Takeoff in Advanced Robotics Will Power the Next Productivity Surge," predicted that by 2025, the percentage of manufacturing jobs performed in the United States by automated "robots" will increase from the current 10 percent to 25 percent.
February 12, 2015 at 07:00 PM
5 minute read
In the not too distant future, will robots be capable of performing the jobs of the vast majority of the readers of this article? A recent study performed by The Boston Consulting Group, “The Shifting Economics of Global Manufacturing: How a Takeoff in Advanced Robotics Will Power the Next Productivity Surge,” predicted that by 2025, the percentage of manufacturing jobs performed in the United States by automated “robots” will increase from the current 10 percent to 25 percent. (A formal report containing the findings is set to be published later this year on BCG's published portal, www.bcgperspectives.com.) Admittedly, this appears to be a shockingly high percentage; however, if one takes a step back, the prediction seems feasible when considering the dramatic evolution of the manufacturing process over the past few decades. When reaching this conclusion, The Boston Consulting Group specifically identified four areas that will lead this transformation from human workers to robots: transportation equipment, including the automotive sector; computer and electronic products; electrical equipment and appliances; and machinery. The reason for the shift to automated robots is simple—the robots save the companies employing these technologies money. Therefore, it seems plausible that a robot could perform tasks associated with these types of jobs more efficiently, as these sectors traditionally involve repetitive action involving some sort of manual labor. However, the question remains whether software will be advanced enough to allow a robot to perform much more sophisticated tasks involving complex analysis, such as those faced by a practicing attorney.
Before you snicker and simply dismiss the idea that Siri and Watson could replace you at your job, think for a moment about how technology has transformed the world and impacted the legal community within the past 10 years. Technological advances in the past decade now allow us to always be connected and instantly access important documents and data by simply clicking our phone or tablet, no matter where in the world we are located. E-discovery has changed the landscape of litigation and specific rules have been adopted by the overwhelming number of jurisdictions to deal with the preservation and production of electronically stored data. Furthermore, by now most attorneys are familiar with the term “predictive coding,” which refers to software technology that is trained to identify and determine the relevancy of a large number of documents. The algorithms utilized by the computer software during the predictive coding process identify relevant and privileged documents in place of a human document reviewer. While the computer software never gets tired and does not make mistakes, a human attorney is still needed in order to “train” the software to identify the appropriate documents. As a member of a law firm that has utilized predictive coding in a number of complex litigations, involving millions of pages of documents, I can personally attest to the positive results that predictive coding has helped to achieve. The success of predictive coding has demonstrated that members of the legal community, including big and small law firms, must continuously adapt to the changing legal environment while embracing the newest technology.
As law firms and solo practitioners continue to deal with demanding clients and increasing costs, they have no choice but to be conscious of the bottom line and embrace ideas that can help obtain the best results possible in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. Although I am skeptical that a robot would be able to perform all the tasks and responsibilities that attorneys are trusted with on a daily basis, the idea of a robot attorney is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. Specifically, when focusing on lower-level associates, it seems very plausible that a robot attorney would be capable of performing the somewhat remedial tasks that these younger lawyers are often called upon to perform. There seems to be no doubt that a properly trained robot attorney would be able to complete research, participate in discovery, provide analysis, and draft elementary contracts and documents addressing basic issues in a timely and efficient manner. In fact, a recent report by Jomati Consultants reached a similar conclusion in “Civilisation 2030: The Near Future for Law Firms.” By 2030, Jomati Consultants predicts that robots would be capable of performing “the work of a dozen low-level associates.” Not only would the robot attorney be able to complete the work of a number of associates, the robot attorneys would never get tired and they would never ask for pay raises. Accordingly, the authors theorize that by replacing a number of junior associates with one robot attorney, a law firm would be able to obtain much better results at a decreased cost to the client—a true win-win situation.
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 AllAn Employer's Rule 34 'Possession, Custody and Control' Over ESI on 'BYOD' Devices
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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