Are lawyers cooked by AI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will recent graduates get jobs if AI now gives the first drafts?

It speeds them up and makes them more efficient. And ultimately we may need fewer lawyers for that reason. But someone still needs to cite check and tailor the brief to the specific case. Handing an AI brief to a partner without going through it with a fine tooth comb and personalizing it is a truly terrible idea.

It wil catch up far faster than think. And the junior lawyers that spend several years getting a degree will quickly be replaced by people who took a 1 - 6 month law specific intensive prompting course.

But will they become 10 year experienced lawyers? We will eventually need some of those too. [/quote

Never said we wouldn't need those. The amount of work and/or the type of work juniors do will drastically change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s coming for junior associates jobs. Can spit out a first draft that experienced lawyers will have to review.

This. AI, once you understand how to use it, is so much better than a junior associate.

I mean first of all you are just admitting you have crap junior associates but second here do you think senior associates come from? Are they just stored in a little bell jar until you have need of one?

I have to admit that we have a crap junior associate, and I would rather work with AI than with them. Also, the more I use AI, the more efficient I have become. It's just a tool that requires a lot of reworking, but it’s very efficient and only getting better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AI is currently like a fancy search engine. Everyone needs to calm down.

If thats what you think, you aren't using it to its full capabilities. Search engines don't actual do part of your job for you, AI does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s coming for junior associates jobs. Can spit out a first draft that experienced lawyers will have to review.

This. AI, once you understand how to use it, is so much better than a junior associate.

I mean first of all you are just admitting you have crap junior associates but second here do you think senior associates come from? Are they just stored in a little bell jar until you have need of one?

I have to admit that we have a crap junior associate, and I would rather work with AI than with them. Also, the more I use AI, the more efficient I have become. It's just a tool that requires a lot of reworking, but it’s very efficient and only getting better.

DP. Not sure if you're choosing to ignore PP'# point or just not getting it. But she's right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AI is currently like a fancy search engine. Everyone needs to calm down.

One of the big problems with AI is that it's not a search engine and people think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s coming for junior associates jobs. Can spit out a first draft that experienced lawyers will have to review.

This. AI, once you understand how to use it, is so much better than a junior associate.

I mean first of all you are just admitting you have crap junior associates but second here do you think senior associates come from? Are they just stored in a little bell jar until you have need of one?

I have to admit that we have a crap junior associate, and I would rather work with AI than with them. Also, the more I use AI, the more efficient I have become. It's just a tool that requires a lot of reworking, but it’s very efficient and only getting better.

DP. Not sure if you're choosing to ignore PP'# point or just not getting it. But she's right.

The point about senior associates? Ya, to get one in our group, we'll need to hire outside. Our junior associate consistently misses deadlines, works only about 4 hours a day, and submits work that I can't use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s coming for junior associates jobs. Can spit out a first draft that experienced lawyers will have to review.

This. AI, once you understand how to use it, is so much better than a junior associate.

I mean first of all you are just admitting you have crap junior associates but second here do you think senior associates come from? Are they just stored in a little bell jar until you have need of one?

I have to admit that we have a crap junior associate, and I would rather work with AI than with them. Also, the more I use AI, the more efficient I have become. It's just a tool that requires a lot of reworking, but it’s very efficient and only getting better.

DP. Not sure if you're choosing to ignore PP'# point or just not getting it. But she's right.

The point about senior associates? Ya, to get one in our group, we'll need to hire outside. Our junior associate consistently misses deadlines, works only about 4 hours a day, and submits work that I can't use.

Because if your crappy firm can’t train its own associates I’m sure you’ll have your pick of highly qualified associates looking to jump to it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s coming for junior associates jobs. Can spit out a first draft that experienced lawyers will have to review.

This. AI, once you understand how to use it, is so much better than a junior associate.

I mean first of all you are just admitting you have crap junior associates but second here do you think senior associates come from? Are they just stored in a little bell jar until you have need of one?

I have to admit that we have a crap junior associate, and I would rather work with AI than with them. Also, the more I use AI, the more efficient I have become. It's just a tool that requires a lot of reworking, but it’s very efficient and only getting better.

DP. Not sure if you're choosing to ignore PP'# point or just not getting it. But she's right.

The point about senior associates? Ya, to get one in our group, we'll need to hire outside. Our junior associate consistently misses deadlines, works only about 4 hours a day, and submits work that I can't use.

Because if your crappy firm can’t train its own associates I’m sure you’ll have your pick of highly qualified associates looking to jump to it

It was a nepotism hire, and I'm staying out of it. Our last hire before this person was fantastic, but they no longer do junior associate-type work. I don't think you can train someone with a poor work ethic, a lack of focus, or a lack of ambition. It'll resolve itself in the next year or two, and in the meantime, I'm becoming quite competent with AI and finding crossover uses in my personal life.

[Anonymous]

I can't see it happening if you're a judge / arbitrator. It may be helpful in giving recommendations but ultimately can't weigh credibility. Can't currently rule on objections with accuracy, either. I would think a human review would be needed in these roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't see it happening if you're a judge / arbitrator. It may be helpful in giving recommendations but ultimately can't weigh credibility. Can't currently rule on objections with accuracy, either. I would think a human review would be needed in these roles.

In Ross v. United States, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals publicly disclosed and discussed its use of ChatGPT to assist in evaluating a "common knowledge" argument. It's a tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI is currently like a fancy search engine. Everyone needs to calm down.

If thats what you think, you aren't using it to its full capabilities. Search engines don't actual do part of your job for you, AI does.

It is a tool to help you do the work. If you let it do part of the job for you you are failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing about AI is how credulous people are about what it can do.

It can't think. It can't reason. It doesn't make choices. It doesn't even "write."
It recognizes patterns and makes predictions based on those patterns. There are uses for that! But very few jobs where that is the whole ball of wax.

+1. Also how people assume it’s getting better / more accurate the more it is used and the more time
passes, which may not be the case.

There is no “may not be” about it, it is the case.

And you can customize it to your own companies needs; you can direct outputs to align with you mission statement, broad goals, short term goals etc. And you can instruct to stay within regulatory or charter guardrails.

So many people commenting that have no idea what the current AI capabilities are.

I am not in tech or a super technical person, but I am definitely not going to leg it pass me bye.

It saves so much time and has greatly reduced my stress level.

It is a tool. Cannot replace judgment. Stay within regulatory guardrails? You can’t program that. That is an art not a science. Also money is made when guardrails are pushed but not broken. Good luck with AI for that. Acceptable regulatory risk today may not be ok tomorrow but fine on Friday.

Just wait. This is like the internet in 1995, before widespread commerce, banking, investing, etc.

The models are getting better at an astonishing rate, and we're just getting started. I don't think we'll be using pure AI to argue in court (of course not), but it's going to speed up every other part of the legal profession. Unless more work is created, that will put downward pressure on rates. It will probably be akin to what's happening in software - those that use AI effectively will be more productive and thrive, ultimately creating more value for themselves and the firms they work for.

Maybe in 10 years we can have this argument. I doubt it though. I do not think there will be a downward pressure on rates. Either no pressure or at the top of the profession an increase in rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing about AI is how credulous people are about what it can do.

It can't think. It can't reason. It doesn't make choices. It doesn't even "write."
It recognizes patterns and makes predictions based on those patterns. There are uses for that! But very few jobs where that is the whole ball of wax.

+1. Also how people assume it’s getting better / more accurate the more it is used and the more time
passes, which may not be the case.

There is no “may not be” about it, it is the case.

And you can customize it to your own companies needs; you can direct outputs to align with you mission statement, broad goals, short term goals etc. And you can instruct to stay within regulatory or charter guardrails.

So many people commenting that have no idea what the current AI capabilities are.

I am not in tech or a super technical person, but I am definitely not going to leg it pass me bye.

It saves so much time and has greatly reduced my stress level.

It is a tool. Cannot replace judgment. Stay within regulatory guardrails? You can’t program that. That is an art not a science. Also money is made when guardrails are pushed but not broken. Good luck with AI for that. Acceptable regulatory risk today may not be ok tomorrow but fine on Friday.

Just wait. This is like the internet in 1995, before widespread commerce, banking, investing, etc.

The models are getting better at an astonishing rate, and we're just getting started. I don't think we'll be using pure AI to argue in court (of course not), but it's going to speed up every other part of the legal profession. Unless more work is created, that will put downward pressure on rates. It will probably be akin to what's happening in software - those that use AI effectively will be more productive and thrive, ultimately creating more value for themselves and the firms they work for.

Maybe in 10 years we can have this argument. I doubt it though. I do not think there will be a downward pressure on rates. Either no pressure or at the top of the profession an increase in rates.

I think we end up with fewer overall lawyers, with those at the top still commanding high rates. Either they or their assistants will have to be very competent in AI tools to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most dangerous thing about AI is how credulous people are about what it can do.

It can't think. It can't reason. It doesn't make choices. It doesn't even "write."
It recognizes patterns and makes predictions based on those patterns. There are uses for that! But very few jobs where that is the whole ball of wax.

+1. Also how people assume it’s getting better / more accurate the more it is used and the more time
passes, which may not be the case.

There is no “may not be” about it, it is the case.

And you can customize it to your own companies needs; you can direct outputs to align with you mission statement, broad goals, short term goals etc. And you can instruct to stay within regulatory or charter guardrails.

So many people commenting that have no idea what the current AI capabilities are.

I am not in tech or a super technical person, but I am definitely not going to leg it pass me bye.

It saves so much time and has greatly reduced my stress level.

It is a tool. Cannot replace judgment. Stay within regulatory guardrails? You can’t program that. That is an art not a science. Also money is made when guardrails are pushed but not broken. Good luck with AI for that. Acceptable regulatory risk today may not be ok tomorrow but fine on Friday.

Just wait. This is like the internet in 1995, before widespread commerce, banking, investing, etc.

The models are getting better at an astonishing rate, and we're just getting started. I don't think we'll be using pure AI to argue in court (of course not), but it's going to speed up every other part of the legal profession. Unless more work is created, that will put downward pressure on rates. It will probably be akin to what's happening in software - those that use AI effectively will be more productive and thrive, ultimately creating more value for themselves and the firms they work for.

Maybe in 10 years we can have this argument. I doubt it though. I do not think there will be a downward pressure on rates. Either no pressure or at the top of the profession an increase in rates.

Westlaw made lawyers more efficient. It didn’t make rates go down.

[Anonymous]

If you’re skilled at writing prompts a tool like Lexis Protege can already do the work of paralegals and junior associates.

Law firms will fight to protect their earning similar to how the real estate industry fought to keep MLS data from the public but eventually the model for law firms will have to change dramatically.