In conversations with legal industry leaders, a recurring concern arises: the increasing need and difficulty of incorporating, training and satisfying a new generation of lawyers, for whom the traditional “career path” has lost its appeal. At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) is trying to gain a foothold in the legal field, and law firms’ investments in this technology are growing as bots learn and more accurately perform tasks previously done by younger lawyers. But is the legal industry on track to replace junior lawyers with algorithms?
When used effectively, AI already not only holds promise, but is beginning to demonstrate that it can generate time savings in the workplace by streamlining inefficient processes and automating routine tasks. However, voices are also beginning to be heard warning that AI may not have as much potential as it seemed a priori and as the most enthusiastic predicted.
It seems clear that the speed and depth with which legal research can be performed is increased, and the preparation of first versions of documents, essential for initiating negotiations, is significantly optimized, to mention just a few benefits. These tasks, traditionally assigned to junior lawyers, can now be carried out with undisputed efficiency, reducing costs and increasing the profitability of the business.
However, a simplistic view that equates the benefits of technology with its cost conceals a crucial risk: the possibility that the automation of functions will result in a generation of less educated, less motivated and less critically skilled lawyers.
The professional development of lawyers in their early years is critical. During this period, they must move from knowing the fundamentals of law to developing a specialization in what we know as “business lawyering.” This involves becoming familiar with precedents in specific niches, identifying trends and patterns in data, establishing relationships with their clients’ industries, and applying this information in formulating business legal strategies. The deeper they delve into these skills, the greater their ability to generate value for the firm, advance their career path and professional development.
It is also common to forget a specific function of these early years of the lawyers’ professional stage, and that is the so-called “socialization process”. In these years, young lawyers, in addition to acquiring the necessary technical knowledge and skills, must also develop skills inherent to the legal profession, such as a critical sense, new personal relationships, internalizing the culture of large firms and beginning to understand commercial activities. These skills are developed by imitation and contact, working side by side with other professionals, and especially with partners. In this, AI not only does not help young lawyers, but can be detrimental by focusing them only on technical tasks or, for example, on home office days that take them away from this socialization process.
Likewise, the role of the client and the hourly billing structure are also critical aspects in this new scenario where AI is gaining prominence. Traditionally, there has been a tendency to overbill the work of junior professionals and underbill the time of senior associates. This balance has worked for both the client, who feels in control of costs, and the firm, which maintains a logical profitability.
However, if AI dramatically reduces the time required for junior professionals to complete their tasks, senior associate and partner rates will have to increase significantly to maintain the profitability expected by the partners. This could lead to the demise of the hourly billing model as we know it today, with a possible migration to project or milestone billing, a change that could benefit only the client if not managed correctly.
The future of legal service delivery lies in the added value that a lawyer can offer to a transaction. This added value is achieved by properly training associates and recognizing their own ability to bring value to a client through their legal expertise. Charging according to this value is essential.
If law firms structure their teams so that AI takes on the heavier and more extensive tasks (but not the complex ones), thereby freeing up time for associates-in-training to absorb knowledge from partners and learn how to apply business competencies in the legal framework, greater value delivery for clients will be achieved. In addition, if partners include mentoring as one of their priorities, it can ensure that the legal industry and technology coexist in a win-win manner.
From a strategic perspective, replacing investment in juniors to increase investment in technology tools does not seem close. Rather, investment in juniors will need to be complemented by increasing investment in technology so that the training of these juniors is increasingly rapid.
This combination, consisting of young lawyers with new expectations and, at the same time, new technology capable of accelerating their learning curve, will confront firms with a challenging scenario. On the one hand, AI will accelerate technical and professional learning, which could shorten the career to partnership; but at the same time, if not managed correctly, the opposite could happen: AI could accelerate learning, but not “career” or personal management and business generation skills. This could force the career path to partnership to lengthen and force current partners to stay longer in the firms.
Antonio Gómez Montoya.