{"id":129001,"date":"2025-07-31T08:46:23","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T16:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/31\/andrew-yang-says-ai-is-replacing-biglaw-associates-which-is-great-news-for-malpractice-lawyers\/"},"modified":"2025-07-31T08:46:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T16:46:23","slug":"andrew-yang-says-ai-is-replacing-biglaw-associates-which-is-great-news-for-malpractice-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/31\/andrew-yang-says-ai-is-replacing-biglaw-associates-which-is-great-news-for-malpractice-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"Andrew Yang Says AI Is Replacing Biglaw Associates, Which Is Great News For Malpractice Lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andrew Yang hasn\u2019t had a lot of success at the polls, but the former Davis Polk associate turned tech entrepreneur still enjoys his Yang Gang following on social media. Over the weekend, Yang offered a bleak assessment of the future of the profession based on a conversation with an unnamed Biglaw partner.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

No, it\u2019s not. No, it can\u2019t. No, it\u2019s not. And of the million reasons to second-guess that law school application, this is none of them.<\/p>\n

To be a little more fair to the unduly credulous Yang, AI might be doing some<\/em> work that used to be done by junior associates, but most of that sort of drudgery \u2014 the proverbial first-pass review in a Topeka warehouse \u2014 had already been outsourced one way or another years ago. The work that departed in favor of contract attorneys in the 2000s may now be in the hands of an algorithm, but that\u2019s not what this Tweet is about.<\/p>\n

First of all, AI doesn\u2019t \u201cgenerate a motion in an hour.\u201d If you\u2019re just looking for AI to do the job, then AI can produce a motion in minutes<\/em>\u2026 as long as you don\u2019t care how much the firm will get sanctioned. AI still screws up. Often. Most of the work involved in a draft motion isn\u2019t generating the words, it\u2019s making sure it\u2019s the best words. If a motion generated by AI \u201cin an hour\u201d is better than what a junior can produce in a week \u2014 it won\u2019t be \u2014 it probably says more about the partner\u2019s warped recollection of their own genius. <\/p>\n

Professional AI solutions absolutely speed up the workflow, perhaps helping that junior associate complete a non-embarrassing first draft in two days instead of a week, but that\u2019s still a draft the junior associate<\/em> prepares even if the AI sped up the process. <\/p>\n

Which puts the lie to the claim \u201cAnd the work is better.\u201d The work is still a junior associate\u2019s, pushed along by an algorithm spitting out filler text or summarizing the statement of facts or producing better research results teased out of the natural language prompt. If the partner really thinks the work is better, that\u2019s not the AI\u2019s doing. The AI is busy trying to shove Mack v. Armstrong<\/em> into the brief even though it doesn\u2019t exist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So students shouldn\u2019t let AI become the reason not to go to law school. Let the Trump administration making it prohibitively expensive<\/a> do that work for you.<\/p>\n

If there\u2019s a lesson to extract from the last few AI hallucination scandals, it\u2019s that the hallucination problem is almost always a partner\u2019s fault<\/a>. It\u2019s the partners who have convinced themselves that the magic chatbot is replacing their costly associates before bonus season. The associates themselves seem to understand how to actually use AI while the partners keep trying to lawyer via AI about as well as they could explain Italian Brainrot memes. So it\u2019s not surprising that a partner claims \u2014 smittenly \u2014 that some vague AI can \u201cgenerate\u201d work that\u2019s \u201cbetter\u201d than the associates.<\/p>\n

The tech bros of the world aren\u2019t helping, perpetually overpromising on what this tool can accomplish in their mad pursuit of VC money. It makes me sound like I\u2019m down on AI, which is not true at all: I think AI is a revolutionary technology that \u2014 assuming the bubble doesn\u2019t burst \u2014 will accelerate the legal workflow. But it\u2019s not about to replace associates because what we have right now is about as good as it\u2019s going to get<\/a>. At least for a long while. And then only if the bubble doesn\u2019t burst<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But this is the critical distinction: AI does not in any way replace<\/em> lawyer jobs.<\/p>\n

Whalers were replaced<\/em> by electric lightbulbs.1<\/sup> Manual typesetters were replaced<\/em> by digital printing. AI isn\u2019t replacing associates, it\u2019s a tool allowing them to work faster. In that sense, it\u2019s not unlike the advent of online research: junior associates didn\u2019t disappear because they didn\u2019t spend half their day running back and forth to the library\u2026 they just did more research. <\/p>\n

That might mean the industry has fewer openings for new lawyers. If junior lawyers do their jobs twice as fast, the firm needs half as many to do the the same work. While the distinction may not be much comfort to the law grad left outside looking in, it\u2019s important because jobs lost to efficiency come back when there\u2019s more work to be done. Indeed, the legal industry probably will get bigger. The world keeps growing in size and complexity and that means more legal work over the long haul and, by extension, more junior associate jobs for partners to systematically devalue by pretending AI is doing everything.<\/p>\n

No one is picking Captain Ahab up off the unemployment line. I\u2019d say he should learn to code, but AI actually might replace that.<\/p>\n

[1] Or relocating to Carolina in 1997.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Andrew Yang Says AI Is Replacing Biglaw Associates, Which Is Great News For Malpractice Lawyers<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Andrew Yang hasn\u2019t had a lot of success at the polls, but the former Davis Polk associate turned tech entrepreneur still enjoys his Yang Gang following on social media. Over the weekend, Yang offered a bleak assessment of the future of the profession based on a conversation with an unnamed Biglaw partner.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

No, it\u2019s not. No, it can\u2019t. No, it\u2019s not. And of the million reasons to second-guess that law school application, this is none of them.<\/p>\n

To be a little more fair to the unduly credulous Yang, AI might be doing some<\/em> work that used to be done by junior associates, but most of that sort of drudgery \u2014 the proverbial first-pass review in a Topeka warehouse \u2014 had already been outsourced one way or another years ago. The work that departed in favor of contract attorneys in the 2000s may now be in the hands of an algorithm, but that\u2019s not what this Tweet is about.<\/p>\n

First of all, AI doesn\u2019t \u201cgenerate a motion in an hour.\u201d If you\u2019re just looking for AI to do the job, then AI can produce a motion in minutes<\/em>\u2026 as long as you don\u2019t care how much the firm will get sanctioned. AI still screws up. Often. Most of the work involved in a draft motion isn\u2019t generating the words, it\u2019s making sure it\u2019s the best words. If a motion generated by AI \u201cin an hour\u201d is better than what a junior can produce in a week \u2014 it won\u2019t be \u2014 it probably says more about the partner\u2019s warped recollection of their own genius. <\/p>\n

Professional AI solutions absolutely speed up the workflow, perhaps helping that junior associate complete a non-embarrassing first draft in two days instead of a week, but that\u2019s still a draft the junior associate<\/em> prepares even if the AI sped up the process. <\/p>\n

Which puts the lie to the claim \u201cAnd the work is better.\u201d The work is still a junior associate\u2019s, pushed along by an algorithm spitting out filler text or summarizing the statement of facts or producing better research results teased out of the natural language prompt. If the partner really thinks the work is better, that\u2019s not the AI\u2019s doing. The AI is busy trying to shove Mack v. Armstrong<\/em> into the brief even though it doesn\u2019t exist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So students shouldn\u2019t let AI become the reason not to go to law school. Let the Trump administration making it prohibitively expensive<\/a> do that work for you.<\/p>\n

If there\u2019s a lesson to extract from the last few AI hallucination scandals, it\u2019s that the hallucination problem is almost always a partner\u2019s fault<\/a>. It\u2019s the partners who have convinced themselves that the magic chatbot is replacing their costly associates before bonus season. The associates themselves seem to understand how to actually use AI while the partners keep trying to lawyer via AI about as well as they could explain Italian Brainrot memes. So it\u2019s not surprising that a partner claims \u2014 smittenly \u2014 that some vague AI can \u201cgenerate\u201d work that\u2019s \u201cbetter\u201d than the associates.<\/p>\n

The tech bros of the world aren\u2019t helping, perpetually overpromising on what this tool can accomplish in their mad pursuit of VC money. It makes me sound like I\u2019m down on AI, which is not true at all: I think AI is a revolutionary technology that \u2014 assuming the bubble doesn\u2019t burst \u2014 will accelerate the legal workflow. But it\u2019s not about to replace associates because what we have right now is about as good as it\u2019s going to get<\/a>. At least for a long while. And then only if the bubble doesn\u2019t burst<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But this is the critical distinction: AI does not in any way replace<\/em> lawyer jobs.<\/p>\n

Whalers were replaced<\/em> by electric lightbulbs.1<\/sup> Manual typesetters were replaced<\/em> by digital printing. AI isn\u2019t replacing associates, it\u2019s a tool allowing them to work faster. In that sense, it\u2019s not unlike the advent of online research: junior associates didn\u2019t disappear because they didn\u2019t spend half their day running back and forth to the library\u2026 they just did more research. <\/p>\n

That might mean the industry has fewer openings for new lawyers. If junior lawyers do their jobs twice as fast, the firm needs half as many to do the the same work. While the distinction may not be much comfort to the law grad left outside looking in, it\u2019s important because jobs lost to efficiency come back when there\u2019s more work to be done. Indeed, the legal industry probably will get bigger. The world keeps growing in size and complexity and that means more legal work over the long haul and, by extension, more junior associate jobs for partners to systematically devalue by pretending AI is doing everything.<\/p>\n

No one is picking Captain Ahab up off the unemployment line. I\u2019d say he should learn to code, but AI actually might replace that.<\/p>\n

[1] Or relocating to Carolina in 1997.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Andrew Yang hasn\u2019t had a lot of success at the polls, but the former Davis Polk associate turned tech entrepreneur still enjoys his Yang Gang following on social media. Over the weekend, Yang offered a bleak assessment of the future of the profession based on a conversation with an unnamed Biglaw partner. No, it\u2019s not. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":128892,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Headshot-300x200-U4FdV8.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129001\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128892"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}