(IANAL)
My first thought was how top lawyers could take advantage of AI to research precedent and case studies to the benefit of their clients. Turns out there are a lot of pitfalls, especially with judges using AI to generate their ideas and opinions.
What I am especially curious about from the lawyers on this board is, to what extent do you think future lawyers might get de-skilled as effective lawyers by using AI as they develop their skills? Will the top minds simply figure out how to use AI without becoming de-skilled? What about the average lawyer?
I guess my basic question is, how do you think AI will affect the profession of lawyering from the perspective of the client?
In my opinion lawyer deskillment has been underway for 20 years or more. A couple of reasons for this.
First, the use of computer added push- button legal research. While I’m the first to admit electronic research is a big help for any lawyer, especially trial lawyers, it has a serious drawback in producing lazy and status quo thinking. I started practice in the dark ages of old-fashioned book research. I used digests, legal encyclopedias, annotated ALR’s and law reviews for research. That made digging out precedents more difficult, but it also necessarily exposed me to alternative theories and contrary precedents that we will often miss with targeted electronic AI research.
Second, legal education has changed. No longer do most classes use the Professor Kingsfield Socratic aporoach to teach legal and thinking skills. Instead legal education is more focused on lectures and tested by multiple choice questions. Dialogue is more focused on questions such as whether racism is advanced through the application of English Common Law, not how to find and apply the common law.
Lawyer skills that require a highly nuanced dig into precedent, finding weaknesses, creating ways to exploit those weaknesses, creating and then developing persuasive positions, determining a case theme or narrative, finding and using leverage, etc. are all beyond AI capabilities. If all a lawyer did was to argue in favor of the status quo, or apply one-sided law to one- sided fact patterns, AI would be fine.
I recently told a law student who was concerned about AI taking the jobs of lawyers that if AI can do it, it isn’t a lawyer skill, it’s a paralegal skill.
in conclusion:
Thanks for the response, COH.
A quick dive to discover any discussion of your view on deskilling failed to locate anything. My limited experience tells me intelligently using AI can help sharpen the mind and accelerate learning. For example, young adults with no business experience jumped into AI and three years in they are not only making a lot of money but they also have developed a relatively sophisticated understanding of business without going to business school. My point is, AI can used to accelerate skilling young lawyers in exactly the areas you consider most important.
Here's my thought. You, COH, have an opportunity (not that you're interested necessarily) to create AI agents that help young lawyers become veterans courtroom lawyers in months. Sound like bs? I'll push your envelope further. You could EASILY develop those agents in HOURS given hours to weeks of some intensive training combined with your knowledge of lawyering and your deep thought into the subject of developing cognitive legal skills.
Someone's going to do it. You might find it to be an interesting hobby and challenge.
Anthropic Made the Impossible Happen! (Goodbye Lawyers)
Edit: Duh! Obviously far more pleasurable for you would be to collaborate with some youngster who already can make the agents. By agent in this case I'm thinking of an interactive courtroom experience a young lawyer could use to practice pracgticing law over and over and over. Think Harvard Law Review cases in the mind of the agent and the agent peppers the student with objections, questions, challenges, you name it (you get to name it, it's your agent).
In my opinion lawyer deskillment has been underway for 20 years or more. A couple of reasons for this.
First, the use of computer added push- button legal research. While I’m the first to admit electronic research is a big help for any lawyer, especially trial lawyers, it has a serious drawback in producing lazy and status quo thinking. I started practice in the dark ages of old-fashioned book research. I used digests, legal encyclopedias, annotated ALR’s and law reviews for research. That made digging out precedents more difficult, but it also necessarily exposed me to alternative theories and contrary precedents that we will often miss with targeted electronic AI research.
Second, legal education has changed. No longer do most classes use the Professor Kingsfield Socratic aporoach to teach legal and thinking skills. Instead legal education is more focused on lectures and tested by multiple choice questions. Dialogue is more focused on questions such as whether racism is advanced through the application of English Common Law, not how to find and apply the common law.
Lawyer skills that require a highly nuanced dig into precedent, finding weaknesses, creating ways to exploit those weaknesses, creating and then developing persuasive positions, determining a case theme or narrative, finding and using leverage, etc. are all beyond AI capabilities. If all a lawyer did was to argue in favor of the status quo, or apply one-sided law to one- sided fact patterns, AI would be fine.
I recently told a law student who was concerned about AI taking the jobs of lawyers that if AI can do it, it isn’t a lawyer skill, it’s a paralegal skill.
in conclusion:
I agree that younger lawyers ain't as good as they used to be, technology and computer research isn't the cause of it. In law school (graduated in 1996), we learned books and westlaw and Lexis for purposes of researching. I was really good with the book research, but found out that computer research is 10 times easier and 10 times more thorough in 1/8th of the time. In the snap of a finger you can find all the things you wanted, the contrary opinions and nuances. How did you know when you had your answer when you used different search terms? You kept seeing the same cases over and over. There is plenty of exposure to alternative theories because in theory you are reading the cases.
I don't know that you are right on the racism stuff. Not sure the testing by multiple choice is correct either. I talk the associates all the time. Most tests were essay driven or at least 1/2 essays
The real dumbing down on lawyers is Zoom. The best learning experiences I ever had were: (1) sitting in a deposition watching the partner take a deposition when I was 2 months out, driving back with him and talking about the purpose of the deposition, the nuances and his behavior (he would vacillate from sweet as pie to bastard and it would throw off the witness; (2) going to court in motion and sitting in the gallery waiting for your case to get called at the typical cattle call motion day-listening to see how other folks argued or approached the judge. Invaluable. It also involved long hours, dedication, and a willingness to learn. I took the court rules home every night and read them for 20-30 minutes a night so that I was familiar with them. That's what I was told to do. It worked like a charm; (3) be a scholar and read the bar journal, the new case updates, etc.; (4) talking to people in person and walking down to their office and asking for help on an issue. That stuff is long gone for the most part. I keep the same schedule I had when I was a newbie -in the office at 6:45am out at 6:30 pm.
From my perspective, young lawyers, regardless of political background, want work life balance but want to get paid a lot. It is worrisome. They all want to make partner, but want won't get them there.
AI might not be replace lawyers directly, but it may not prevent some from getting hired if efficiencies improve with AI.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
Good point about zoom. Motion Days also provided opportunities for lawyer congeniality than helped keep things civil.
My point about racism is just one illustration of how law schools and bar associations see themselves and the law as instruments of social change. That isn’t a bad thing, but in my view, training students to be excellent lawyers is the first priority. That priority has been lost.
From my perspective, young lawyers, regardless of political background, want work life balance but want to get paid a lot. It is worrisome. They all want to make partner, but want won't get them there.
While I agree it certainly is a young person issue (expands beyond legal into other demand professions - physicians, investment bankers, accountants, consultants, etc.), I also see it with law partners. Some experienced partners love going into the office (routine), while others seem to prefer working wherever they can go for the week.
Even worse, the younger crop of partners with families and kids is also not frequenting the office as much as they used to. As someone still in that realm of life, I appreciate it. But, they learned through osmosis and are robbing the younger associates of that same privilege.