Legalweek 2026, the massive trade show more or less focused on Biglaw, kicked off on Monday, March 9, in New York. According to the organizers, this year’s show will attract some 6,000 registered attendees and over 400 speakers. That’s big by any standard.

The show kicked off with a series of workshops. One workshop track was, not surprisingly, entitled the “AI workshop.” The topics included how AI is shaping the profession, how to look at AI ROI, and how to lead and thrive in “the AI-transformed Legal Workplace.” The sessions were led primarily by Jeff Reihl of LexisNexis.

It was the last of these workshops, which dealt with human advancement with AI that offered some interesting insights into the thinking of lawyers and legal professionals. Particularly of those in-house and consultants.

The Legal GenAI Cliche

The central idea of the panel played off the now cliché concept that AI won’t replace lawyers, but it may replace lawyers that don’t use AI or use it well. The idea seemed to revolve around the notion that those who master AI and use it appropriately will have more time for strategic and critical thinking. (Assuming they know how to do that.) As workforces tighten (since AI can do more), it will be these folks who will be left standing.

Following this logic, the notion also seemed to be that the profession will need completely different evaluation processes and advancement criteria based in large part on how well AI is being used. As one panelist put it, in the future, evaluation criteria will center around “who are the best people using these skills.”

In addition, this resulting increased use of AI will mean a decline in the specialist in legal and more emphasis on the generalist who presumably can supplement their lack of training and experience by using AI. All this means of course an emphasis on AI all the way around.

Too Much Kool-Aid?

I think there is a little too much AI Kool-Aid being consumed right now. Too much GenAI writing. You know what I mean:

The one sentence paragraph.

The room suddenly got quiet statement.

The real question is not this but that.

The dramatic two sentence conclusion.

Etc.

The problem is that in the process of embracing GenAI as the be all and end all we may be ignoring a few dangers. For example, I have noticed of late the amount of AI-written slop being produced is increasing every day.

The problem is not only that it’s clear that a human didn’t take the time to write this slop or even edit it but it’s also just not very good writing. And if we keep emphasizing AI skills over all else, this kind of writing and, for that matter, thinking, will become the norm. So much so that what we now consider good writing, and critical thinking, will no longer be the standard by which we evaluate. And what is now good will no longer be considered good.

We are already facing increased usage of AI because it’s so easy. Why take the time to think through a problem when you can just ask ChatGPT to do the work for you? It’s too tempting. I fear the more we emphasize the need for “GenAI skills” the more we will also encourage lazy thinking.

It’s like the addition of the word “at” at the end of a sentence. Good grammar used to demand that you never end a sentencewith a preposition. It’s like “where’s the coffee at” replaced “where’s the coffee.”

So much so that good grammar now sounds, well, weird. And similarly thinking that GenAI slop can replace expertise is dangerous for another reason as well.

The Rise of a Mediocre Generalist at the Expense of Expertise

Moreover, the whole notion that we will no longer need the subject matter expert because AI can replace that expertise so that it’s not needed ignores what makes you an expert. I wasn’t a good mass tort defense lawyer because I read about it on some GenAI output. I was good because I lived through several cases. I knew from experience what would happen. I saw patterns and similarities in how people would react. Do we really think that can be replaced with a prompt that gets a GenAI answer with some platitude? The end result: mediocrity at the expense of real expertise.

Something else: those who are advocating for an increased emphasis on greater AI skills and training and a corresponding emphasis on advancement based on those skills are already good lawyers. They didn’t become what they are by relying on AI. They have critical thinking and writing skills that were developed pre-AI. So, I fear they have forgotten how those skills were honed.

In fact, we may be ignoring the rule of unintended consequences. Overemphasizing GenAI skills and use risks dragging everyone down to the mediocre. And the mediocre becomes more accepted than the good. And the good is lost and replaced in the process. That’s the risk.

So What Can Be Done?

Make no mistake: I’m not an anti-AI curmudgeon. But I am a realist and what I’m seeing is a proliferation and acceptance of GenAI-generated stuff. That worries me since right now it’s humorous but tomorrow it may be accepted.

Practicing law well is exacting and, frankly, hard. It means reading the cases, it means good, thoughtful writing and editing. It means using judgment honed over time. It takes time and energy. Practicing mediocre law, on the other hand, is easy and sloppy.

Instead of focusing on how to train younger lawyers on how to use GenAI, maybe we do something different: let’s first define and then emphasize what and how to be a good lawyer. Skills like problem solving. Understanding clients. Listening. Resilience. Knowing the law. Thinking critically. We can’t expect good lawyering by saying go use AI and then just rewarding that use if we don’t first define and develop those skills.

If we start there and then figure out how GenAI can enhance those skills, we may end up with lawyers with the skill of those who are now talking about what needs to change.

To quote ChatGPT: “Practicing law well is hard. Practicingmediocre law is easy. The real question for lawyers is which path they are willing to choose.”

Classic GenAI line. Sigh.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post GenAI: A Slippery Slope Of Too Much Kool-Aid? appeared first on Above the Law.