This AI era yet again exposes what the legal field rarely admits: we’re masters of precedent, not progress. And that’s exactly the problem.
As for this Era of AI, we need to get honest and start having honest conversations about the fact that this era asks something of us that no generation of lawyers has practiced for.
The risk isn’t AI drafting contracts. It’s firms that never redesign their processes and just bolt tech tools onto broken workflows.
The danger isn't AI giving clients bad law per se. It's lawyers who can't tell the difference between confident and correct.
Clients don't pay for legal knowledge necessarily. They pay for the judgment to know what to do with it.
The real question isn't whether AI changes legal work. It's whether lawyers use this moment to finally define themselves by what only they can do.
By some reports, AI is saving lawyers nearly 240 hours a year on research and document review. That time has to go somewhere. The profession has spent decades defining itself by the work AI now does faster. Figuring out what...
Before AI, a junior associate might spend most of their week pulling clauses from old deals, reformatting templates, and chasing redlines across 14 email threads. Now that's a quick task. The question is now what they should be doing.
AI won't replace lawyers. But it did expose that a lot of what gets billed at $/hr was never really 'thinking.' It was formatting, copy-pasting, and researching things a machine now does in seconds. The real skill is in knowing...