In a recent conversation about hiring, someone told me they wanted a lawyer who could use AI and judge the work it produced. I understood the concern. An experienced lawyer could learn the tool and draw on years of practice to check its answers. A new lawyer might be comfortable with AI but still need help deciding whether the work was right.
Suppose I can teach someone to use AI faster than I can teach someone to practice law; that affects whom I hire. Some AI drafts I have reviewed are comparable to work I would expect from a first- or second-year associate. A senior lawyer knows where to look for weak arguments and unsupported assumptions, and what needs to change before the draft goes to a client.
That worries me for young lawyers. A firm may use AI to handle more work with the lawyers it already has, or hire a lateral who needs less supervision. New lawyers need experience, yet those choices may leave them with fewer chances to get it. They still have to learn to recognize a bad answer and work out a better one. Schools and firms cannot leave them to figure that out alone.
What Law Schools Should Do
Have students do the work before using AI. Ask them to read the cases, identify the issues, and write their analysis. Then let them compare it with an AI draft. What did the tool get right? What did it miss? What did the student change, and why? The answers will tell a professor more than a polished paper alone.
Give students a good-looking memo with bad analysis. Include an unsupported fact, an overlooked exception, or a case that does not say what the writer claims. Have students find and fix the problems. They should be able to point to the source and explain the mistake, not just say that a paragraph feels wrong.
Ask students to defend their advice. After a student submits a paper, sit down and talk about it. Why that recommendation? What would the other side say? Which fact would change the answer? A student may write around a gap in understanding. A conversation makes that harder and prepares the student for questions from a partner or client.
Get students into supervised work with clients. Clinics, interviews, and negotiations give students practice they cannot get from an exam alone. Include exercises where facts are missing or accounts conflict. When a client changes the story halfway through an interview, the student has to listen, follow up, and reconsider the advice. That is part of learning to practice law.
Put a budget on the assignment. Give students a dispute and a client who cannot afford every deposition or motion. Ask what they would do first, what they would skip, and what risk the client would take as a result. They need to learn to explain why an expense is worth it, not just why a procedural step is available.
Teach the checks along with the tools. Students should know which tools they may use, what information they must keep out of them, and how to check the cases they cite. ABA Formal Opinion 512 explains that review depends on the tool and task, while the lawyer remains responsible for the work. Require those checks on every assignment, not just in an AI class.
What Young Lawyers Should Do
Start with your own answer. Before you ask AI, write down what you think and which facts support it. Then use the tool to challenge your analysis. When you turn in the assignment, explain where you changed your mind and why. Your supervisor needs to see your reasoning to help you improve it.
Get to know the law you use. Read the rules, the important cases, and the filings in your matters. When you can, follow an issue through the hearing or resolution instead of stopping when you finish the memo. Seeing how the issue played out will help you understand which arguments were worth making and which points you missed. You will have more to draw on when you review the next AI draft.
Check the work before handing it over. Read the cases and check whether they still apply. Match important factual statements to the record. If you cannot resolve a question, flag it and explain what you need. Your partner should be reviewing your analysis, not discovering that a cited case does not exist or a witness never said what the draft attributes to them.
Ask to do part of the work yourself. Offer to draft a witness outline, handle part of a client interview, or argue a limited issue when your supervisor thinks you are ready. Prepare, get feedback, and ask what you missed. You cannot rush experience, but you can ask for assignments that give you more of it.
Study the edits you get back. Do not just accept the changes and move on. Compare the drafts. Figure out why your partner changed an argument, dropped a point, or qualified a conclusion. Ask when you do not understand. Keep notes you can use on the next assignment so you don’t have to make the same correction again.
Be dependable. Meet deadlines and return calls. If you are stuck or running late, say so while there is still time to help. Learn what the client cares about beyond your assignment. A partner who knows you will follow through is more likely to bring you into client conversations. Listen to the questions clients ask and how your partner answers them.
What Young Partners Should Do
Learn how the client’s business works. Ask what the dispute is disrupting, who will make the decisions, and what result the client could live with. A motion may be worth filing as a matter of law and still be a poor use of the client’s money. Explain that distinction. A faster draft does not replace knowing what your client needs.
Tell associates why you changed their work. Rewriting a draft yourself may be faster today. But if you never explain the changes, you may have to make them again tomorrow. Pick the edits that mattered most and talk them through. What was missing? Why was the argument weak? Why did you recommend a different course?
Leave room for associates to learn. Give an associate a defined issue to handle and ask for a recommendation before reviewing the work. Bring the associate to the client conversation when appropriate. Let them hear the questions and see why the advice changes. If they only see your final draft, they miss much of the lesson.
Be clear about who checks the work. Tell your team which tools they can use and what information they must keep out of them. Assign someone to review the work before it goes to the client, and make sure lawyers raise questions they cannot answer. Try the tools on the tasks you assign. You need to know when a draft is a useful start and when it will take longer to fix than to write yourself.
Count the time it takes to finish the job. Getting adraft in minutes means little if it takes hours to check and rewrite. Track the research, revisions, and discussions needed before the work can go to the client. Use that information to set fees and staffing. Don’t cut the time spent teaching associates; it may save you repeated corrections later.
Look beyond years in practice when hiring. Give candidates a hypothetical file and a flawed draft. Ask what they would fix, what they recommend, and how a changed fact would affect their advice. Do this with laterals as well as new lawyers. Then make time to teach the people you hire. You cannot count on another firm to train every lawyer you will need.
Give People a Reason to Trust Your Work
No one can promise young lawyers that learning these skills will protect their jobs. But they need to know how to use AI without relying on an answer they cannot explain. That means reading the cases, knowing the record, and asking for help when the answer is unclear. Schools and firms have to give them opportunities to do that work under supervision. We cannot expect experienced judgment from new lawyers while taking away their chances to practice.
The person in that hiring conversation wanted work they could send to a client without spending a full day fixing it. Young lawyers need to understand that concern. Before you hand over a draft, check it and decide what you recommend. If your partner asks why, you should be able to explain your answer — and say where you still need help.
Frank Ramos is a partner at Goldberg Segalla in Miami, where he practices commercial litigation, products, and catastrophic personal injury. You can follow him on LinkedIn, where he has about 80,000 followers.
The post Making Yourself AI-Proof appeared first on Above the Law.
In a recent conversation about hiring, someone told me they wanted a lawyer who could use AI and judge the work it produced. I understood the concern. An experienced lawyer could learn the tool and draw on years of practice to check its answers. A new lawyer might be comfortable with AI but still need help deciding whether the work was right.
Suppose I can teach someone to use AI faster than I can teach someone to practice law; that affects whom I hire. Some AI drafts I have reviewed are comparable to work I would expect from a first- or second-year associate. A senior lawyer knows where to look for weak arguments and unsupported assumptions, and what needs to change before the draft goes to a client.
That worries me for young lawyers. A firm may use AI to handle more work with the lawyers it already has, or hire a lateral who needs less supervision. New lawyers need experience, yet those choices may leave them with fewer chances to get it. They still have to learn to recognize a bad answer and work out a better one. Schools and firms cannot leave them to figure that out alone.
What Law Schools Should Do
Have students do the work before using AI. Ask them to read the cases, identify the issues, and write their analysis. Then let them compare it with an AI draft. What did the tool get right? What did it miss? What did the student change, and why? The answers will tell a professor more than a polished paper alone.
Give students a good-looking memo with bad analysis. Include an unsupported fact, an overlooked exception, or a case that does not say what the writer claims. Have students find and fix the problems. They should be able to point to the source and explain the mistake, not just say that a paragraph feels wrong.
Ask students to defend their advice. After a student submits a paper, sit down and talk about it. Why that recommendation? What would the other side say? Which fact would change the answer? A student may write around a gap in understanding. A conversation makes that harder and prepares the student for questions from a partner or client.
Get students into supervised work with clients. Clinics, interviews, and negotiations give students practice they cannot get from an exam alone. Include exercises where facts are missing or accounts conflict. When a client changes the story halfway through an interview, the student has to listen, follow up, and reconsider the advice. That is part of learning to practice law.
Put a budget on the assignment. Give students a dispute and a client who cannot afford every deposition or motion. Ask what they would do first, what they would skip, and what risk the client would take as a result. They need to learn to explain why an expense is worth it, not just why a procedural step is available.
Teach the checks along with the tools. Students should know which tools they may use, what information they must keep out of them, and how to check the cases they cite. ABA Formal Opinion 512 explains that review depends on the tool and task, while the lawyer remains responsible for the work. Require those checks on every assignment, not just in an AI class.
What Young Lawyers Should Do
Start with your own answer. Before you ask AI, write down what you think and which facts support it. Then use the tool to challenge your analysis. When you turn in the assignment, explain where you changed your mind and why. Your supervisor needs to see your reasoning to help you improve it.
Get to know the law you use. Read the rules, the important cases, and the filings in your matters. When you can, follow an issue through the hearing or resolution instead of stopping when you finish the memo. Seeing how the issue played out will help you understand which arguments were worth making and which points you missed. You will have more to draw on when you review the next AI draft.
Check the work before handing it over. Read the cases and check whether they still apply. Match important factual statements to the record. If you cannot resolve a question, flag it and explain what you need. Your partner should be reviewing your analysis, not discovering that a cited case does not exist or a witness never said what the draft attributes to them.
Ask to do part of the work yourself. Offer to draft a witness outline, handle part of a client interview, or argue a limited issue when your supervisor thinks you are ready. Prepare, get feedback, and ask what you missed. You cannot rush experience, but you can ask for assignments that give you more of it.
Study the edits you get back. Do not just accept the changes and move on. Compare the drafts. Figure out why your partner changed an argument, dropped a point, or qualified a conclusion. Ask when you do not understand. Keep notes you can use on the next assignment so you don’t have to make the same correction again.
Be dependable. Meet deadlines and return calls. If you are stuck or running late, say so while there is still time to help. Learn what the client cares about beyond your assignment. A partner who knows you will follow through is more likely to bring you into client conversations. Listen to the questions clients ask and how your partner answers them.
What Young Partners Should Do
Learn how the client’s business works. Ask what the dispute is disrupting, who will make the decisions, and what result the client could live with. A motion may be worth filing as a matter of law and still be a poor use of the client’s money. Explain that distinction. A faster draft does not replace knowing what your client needs.
Tell associates why you changed their work. Rewriting a draft yourself may be faster today. But if you never explain the changes, you may have to make them again tomorrow. Pick the edits that mattered most and talk them through. What was missing? Why was the argument weak? Why did you recommend a different course?
Leave room for associates to learn. Give an associate a defined issue to handle and ask for a recommendation before reviewing the work. Bring the associate to the client conversation when appropriate. Let them hear the questions and see why the advice changes. If they only see your final draft, they miss much of the lesson.
Be clear about who checks the work. Tell your team which tools they can use and what information they must keep out of them. Assign someone to review the work before it goes to the client, and make sure lawyers raise questions they cannot answer. Try the tools on the tasks you assign. You need to know when a draft is a useful start and when it will take longer to fix than to write yourself.
Count the time it takes to finish the job. Getting adraft in minutes means little if it takes hours to check and rewrite. Track the research, revisions, and discussions needed before the work can go to the client. Use that information to set fees and staffing. Don’t cut the time spent teaching associates; it may save you repeated corrections later.
Look beyond years in practice when hiring. Give candidates a hypothetical file and a flawed draft. Ask what they would fix, what they recommend, and how a changed fact would affect their advice. Do this with laterals as well as new lawyers. Then make time to teach the people you hire. You cannot count on another firm to train every lawyer you will need.
Give People a Reason to Trust Your Work
No one can promise young lawyers that learning these skills will protect their jobs. But they need to know how to use AI without relying on an answer they cannot explain. That means reading the cases, knowing the record, and asking for help when the answer is unclear. Schools and firms have to give them opportunities to do that work under supervision. We cannot expect experienced judgment from new lawyers while taking away their chances to practice.
The person in that hiring conversation wanted work they could send to a client without spending a full day fixing it. Young lawyers need to understand that concern. Before you hand over a draft, check it and decide what you recommend. If your partner asks why, you should be able to explain your answer — and say where you still need help.
Frank Ramos is a partner at Goldberg Segalla in Miami, where he practices commercial litigation, products, and catastrophic personal injury. You can follow him on LinkedIn, where he has about 80,000 followers.
