More importantly, like me,\u00a0Innanen\u00a0actually practiced\u00a0law for several years. He (and I)\u00a0knows\u00a0what it means to be a lawyer. We know\u00a0what lawyers\u00a0actually do\u00a0day in and day out.\u00a0And like me, he thinks the idea that AI and automation will free us all up to do the\u00a0high-end\u00a0work is, to be blunt, mostly bullshit.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0<\/strong>Innanen<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cRant\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In a\u00a0roughly\u00a012-minute \u201crant\u201d as he called it,\u00a0Innanen\u00a0made the following\u00a0realistic\u00a0key points:<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0The reality is that most legal work is just work. It\u2019s not tedious,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategic stuff. It\u2019s just regular work. What happens when it\u2019s replaced?\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Even if you accept the premise that you can separate the strategic work from the regular work, what happens to the lawyers with time on their hands?<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0High-end\u00a0strategic work is hard. It takes incredible focus and an\u00a0absence\u00a0of\u00a0distractions.\u00a0You can\u2019t do it eight hours a day, day in and day out.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Most\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategic work will go to the\u00a0specialists in their fields. The\u00a0senior\u00a0partners. It\u2019s not going to go to the associates or\u00a0midlevel\u00a0lawyers.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0The reality? There is not an\u00a0infinite\u00a0queue\u00a0of\u00a0high-level work waiting for us. What will happen when the tedious and regular work is gone and those without the capabilities to do the\u00a0high-end\u00a0work have little to do?<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0If we truly believed the truism, then we\u00a0should\u00a0be racing to develop the necessary\u00a0skills in\u00a0our\u00a0workforce. We should all be learning how to do the\u00a0strategic\u00a0work since that\u2019s all we may have left. But we aren\u2019t. We aren\u2019t in law schools or in law firms.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0We\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0trust the vendors who constantly spout the truism in effort to allay fears and sell\u00a0products. The only reason they aren\u2019t offering products that can do strategic\u00a0work now is that the tools aren\u2019t there yet. But the minute they are,\u00a0rest assured\u00a0vendors will start\u00a0trumpeting\u00a0them. The truism is not a moral or ethical commitment on their\u00a0part;\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0just a technical limitation.<\/p>\n Innanen\u00a0believes we should be\u00a0asking\u00a0hard questions\u00a0instead of\u00a0resorting\u00a0to\u00a0platitudes\u00a0that\u00a0make us feel secure and safe. Nobody, he says, is talking about what\u2019s good for the profession.\u00a0Instead,\u00a0we are focusing on things like how to write better prompts and features.<\/p>\n Innanen\u2019s\u00a0observations aren\u2019t just theoretical complaints. They reflect fundamental economic realities we\u2019re ignoring.\u00a0These\u00a0are scary observations and uncomfortable questions that few are asking.\u00a0<\/p>\n But I\u2019ve been saying\u00a0roughly\u00a0the same thing for\u00a0some time.<\/p>\n Reality<\/strong>\u00a0Number One<\/strong><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the reality.\u00a0Law firms built\u00a0an\u00a0economic powerhouse around a simple formula: more associates billing more hours equals higher profits.\u00a0That\u2019s why firms impose\u00a02,000-hour minimums and hire first-year classes by the dozens.<\/p>\n But this model depends\u00a0on\u00a0there\u00a0being work to do. And like\u00a0Innanen\u00a0says, much of that work is just work. Some of it is tedious, much of it is boring. But most is billable.<\/p>\n But\u00a0much\u00a0of it will become non-billable or at least not billable in the way it is now. The reality is we\u00a0won\u2019t\u00a0need that many\u00a0lawyers.\u00a0The reality is the leverage model won\u2019t work when AI does the\u00a0regular\u00a0work.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0an\u00a0economic\u00a0reality\u00a0we need to accept and plan for.<\/p>\n But law firm management focuses on costs and distributing the maximum amount\u00a0of partner profits at year\u2019s\u00a0end.<\/p>\n Reality Number Two<\/strong><\/p>\n The second reality is that not that many lawyers and legal professionals are good\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0strategy\u00a0stuff. Look at any law firm: there are superstars that bring in business and power the machine. Why? Because they are by and large the ones who can do the\u00a0strategic\u00a0stuff. They can see solutions to thorny problems. They are innovative thinkers. That\u2019s why\u00a0clients\u00a0flock to them.<\/p>\n But then there is the great mass of\u00a0lawyers\u00a0in firms who don\u2019t bring in the work, who don\u2019t come up with the strategies\u00a0and thinking that\u00a0clients\u00a0need. These lawyers play supportive roles.\u00a0<\/p>\n Why? Because they aren\u2019t good at visioning and strategizing. Or they don\u2019t want to do it\u00a0and\u00a0are comfortable where\u00a0they are. That\u2019s why\u00a0we\u00a0have things like nonequity partners. Or those who aren\u2019t on\u00a0equity\u00a0partner\u00a0tracks.\u00a0<\/p>\n These are the\u00a0grinders and minders\u00a0that do the\u00a0regular\u00a0work\u00a0Innanen\u00a0talks about. But what will they do when that regular work is gone? The\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategy\u00a0work is already being done by others. And\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0not an endless supply of it in any event.\u00a0Clients\u00a0aren\u2019t going to pay for high-end thinking that doesn\u2019t solve\u00a0problems.<\/p>\n Certainly,\u00a0it is true that for some lawyers, getting the freedom to do\u00a0high-end thinking will improve their\u00a0output\u00a0and\u00a0service to\u00a0their clients. Ask any good lawyer if they have\u00a0time\u00a0to do all they could to help solve their\u00a0clients\u2019\u00a0problems\u00a0and they will tell you\u00a0emphatically\u00a0no. But those are the\u00a0high-end\u00a0talented lawyers who are\u00a0adapt\u00a0at\u00a0strategy, not the lawyers doing Innanen\u2019s regular work.<\/p>\n So\u00a0even if the idea is sound, we aren\u2019t planning for what it really means.<\/p>\n The\u00a0<\/strong>Training<\/strong>\u00a0Conundrum<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s another\u00a0fundamental\u00a0problem with the\u00a0truism. As\u00a0Innanen\u00a0notes, we aren\u2019t training people to step into the new roles.\u00a0So,\u00a0all those who have done the regular work for years have no training to do what will be in demand, even if you accept the idea that there\u00a0will be this great amount of strategic work to do.<\/p>\n Another\u00a0problem: being able to do high-end work requires critical thinking skills. It\u00a0requires\u00a0experience\u00a0and seeing\u00a0patterns that can be extended into new situations. Yet today much of that\u00a0experience\u00a0is dwindling as AI and automation does\u00a0more and more.\u00a0<\/p>\n So even if you believe that AI can never do strategic thinking (I don\u2019t), you are looking at a future where we have a bunch of lawyers who no longer think like lawyers but like lawyer bots.<\/p>\n The Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n I wholeheartedly\u00a0agree with\u00a0Innanen\u00a0that law firms and the profession better start asking the hard questions about AI instead of racing to get the newest and\u00a0shiniest\u00a0new addition. We need to stop getting AI tools just to say we have them. We need to think\u00a0long and hard about where we are going.\u00a0<\/p>\n Innanen\u2019s\u00a0right\u00a0when he\u00a0says\u00a0lawyers\u00a0are like cockroaches,\u00a0we\u2019re survivors. But cockroaches adapt and evolve. They don\u2019t spend decades doing the same thing while their environment transforms around\u00a0them.<\/p>\n We\u00a0need to start asking questions of ourselves and AI vendors that are uncomfortable. Questions\u00a0like what does it mean for our workforce when what they do will be automated? What new skills should we be developing in our workforce? What will our business model look like when the leverage model is gone,\u00a0replaced\u00a0largely by AI?\u00a0<\/p>\n And maybe most importantly, what will it mean to be a lawyer and legal professional in the future? What will our new value proposition be?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s\u00a0start asking hard questions instead of business as\u00a0usual.<\/p>\n Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The post Challenging Truisms And Embracing A Cockroach Mentality<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n A tech entrepreneur\u2019s 12-minute rant on\u00a0a recent\u00a0Law\u00a0Punx podcast cuts\u00a0through legal AI marketing nonsense. Antti\u00a0Innanen, who founded Dot.\u00a0after practicing law for several years,\u00a0said what\u00a0I\u00a0have been thinking: the idea that AI will free us all up to do high-end strategic work is mostly bullshit.<\/p>\n This notion masquerading as a truism\u00a0sounds\u00a0good.\u00a0We\u00a0like it. We\u00a0want\u00a0it to\u00a0be true.\u00a0It alleviates the\u00a0need to worry about what AI is doing to our profession.\u00a0It assures we will all have jobs in the\u00a0future\u00a0gazing out the window and thinking all day. And getting paid vast sums of money to do so.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0in every press release and white paper from vendors.<\/p>\n But I\u2019ve been saying for some time that the future is not all that rosy. That\u00a0this truism is\u00a0fundamentally\u00a0flawed. So I was pleased to listen to an interview of\u00a0Antti\u00a0Innanen<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0Law\u00a0Punx<\/a>.\u00a0Innanen is a tech\u00a0entrepreneur\u00a0who has founded\u00a0several\u00a0companies.<\/p>\n More importantly, like me,\u00a0Innanen\u00a0actually practiced\u00a0law for several years. He (and I)\u00a0knows\u00a0what it means to be a lawyer. We know\u00a0what lawyers\u00a0actually do\u00a0day in and day out.\u00a0And like me, he thinks the idea that AI and automation will free us all up to do the\u00a0high-end\u00a0work is, to be blunt, mostly bullshit.<\/p>\n The\u00a0<\/strong>Innanen<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cRant\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In a\u00a0roughly\u00a012-minute \u201crant\u201d as he called it,\u00a0Innanen\u00a0made the following\u00a0realistic\u00a0key points:<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0The reality is that most legal work is just work. It\u2019s not tedious,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategic stuff. It\u2019s just regular work. What happens when it\u2019s replaced?\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Even if you accept the premise that you can separate the strategic work from the regular work, what happens to the lawyers with time on their hands?<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0High-end\u00a0strategic work is hard. It takes incredible focus and an\u00a0absence\u00a0of\u00a0distractions.\u00a0You can\u2019t do it eight hours a day, day in and day out.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Most\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategic work will go to the\u00a0specialists in their fields. The\u00a0senior\u00a0partners. It\u2019s not going to go to the associates or\u00a0midlevel\u00a0lawyers.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0The reality? There is not an\u00a0infinite\u00a0queue\u00a0of\u00a0high-level work waiting for us. What will happen when the tedious and regular work is gone and those without the capabilities to do the\u00a0high-end\u00a0work have little to do?<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0If we truly believed the truism, then we\u00a0should\u00a0be racing to develop the necessary\u00a0skills in\u00a0our\u00a0workforce. We should all be learning how to do the\u00a0strategic\u00a0work since that\u2019s all we may have left. But we aren\u2019t. We aren\u2019t in law schools or in law firms.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0We\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0trust the vendors who constantly spout the truism in effort to allay fears and sell\u00a0products. The only reason they aren\u2019t offering products that can do strategic\u00a0work now is that the tools aren\u2019t there yet. But the minute they are,\u00a0rest assured\u00a0vendors will start\u00a0trumpeting\u00a0them. The truism is not a moral or ethical commitment on their\u00a0part;\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0just a technical limitation.<\/p>\n Innanen\u00a0believes we should be\u00a0asking\u00a0hard questions\u00a0instead of\u00a0resorting\u00a0to\u00a0platitudes\u00a0that\u00a0make us feel secure and safe. Nobody, he says, is talking about what\u2019s good for the profession.\u00a0Instead,\u00a0we are focusing on things like how to write better prompts and features.<\/p>\n Innanen\u2019s\u00a0observations aren\u2019t just theoretical complaints. They reflect fundamental economic realities we\u2019re ignoring.\u00a0These\u00a0are scary observations and uncomfortable questions that few are asking.\u00a0<\/p>\n But I\u2019ve been saying\u00a0roughly\u00a0the same thing for\u00a0some time.<\/p>\n Reality<\/strong>\u00a0Number One<\/strong><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the reality.\u00a0Law firms built\u00a0an\u00a0economic powerhouse around a simple formula: more associates billing more hours equals higher profits.\u00a0That\u2019s why firms impose\u00a02,000-hour minimums and hire first-year classes by the dozens.<\/p>\n But this model depends\u00a0on\u00a0there\u00a0being work to do. And like\u00a0Innanen\u00a0says, much of that work is just work. Some of it is tedious, much of it is boring. But most is billable.<\/p>\n But\u00a0much\u00a0of it will become non-billable or at least not billable in the way it is now. The reality is we\u00a0won\u2019t\u00a0need that many\u00a0lawyers.\u00a0The reality is the leverage model won\u2019t work when AI does the\u00a0regular\u00a0work.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0an\u00a0economic\u00a0reality\u00a0we need to accept and plan for.<\/p>\n But law firm management focuses on costs and distributing the maximum amount\u00a0of partner profits at year\u2019s\u00a0end.<\/p>\n Reality Number Two<\/strong><\/p>\n The second reality is that not that many lawyers and legal professionals are good\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0strategy\u00a0stuff. Look at any law firm: there are superstars that bring in business and power the machine. Why? Because they are by and large the ones who can do the\u00a0strategic\u00a0stuff. They can see solutions to thorny problems. They are innovative thinkers. That\u2019s why\u00a0clients\u00a0flock to them.<\/p>\n But then there is the great mass of\u00a0lawyers\u00a0in firms who don\u2019t bring in the work, who don\u2019t come up with the strategies\u00a0and thinking that\u00a0clients\u00a0need. These lawyers play supportive roles.\u00a0<\/p>\n Why? Because they aren\u2019t good at visioning and strategizing. Or they don\u2019t want to do it\u00a0and\u00a0are comfortable where\u00a0they are. That\u2019s why\u00a0we\u00a0have things like nonequity partners. Or those who aren\u2019t on\u00a0equity\u00a0partner\u00a0tracks.\u00a0<\/p>\n These are the\u00a0grinders and minders\u00a0that do the\u00a0regular\u00a0work\u00a0Innanen\u00a0talks about. But what will they do when that regular work is gone? The\u00a0high-end\u00a0strategy\u00a0work is already being done by others. And\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0not an endless supply of it in any event.\u00a0Clients\u00a0aren\u2019t going to pay for high-end thinking that doesn\u2019t solve\u00a0problems.<\/p>\n Certainly,\u00a0it is true that for some lawyers, getting the freedom to do\u00a0high-end thinking will improve their\u00a0output\u00a0and\u00a0service to\u00a0their clients. Ask any good lawyer if they have\u00a0time\u00a0to do all they could to help solve their\u00a0clients\u2019\u00a0problems\u00a0and they will tell you\u00a0emphatically\u00a0no. But those are the\u00a0high-end\u00a0talented lawyers who are\u00a0adapt\u00a0at\u00a0strategy, not the lawyers doing Innanen\u2019s regular work.<\/p>\n So\u00a0even if the idea is sound, we aren\u2019t planning for what it really means.<\/p>\n The\u00a0<\/strong>Training<\/strong>\u00a0Conundrum<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s another\u00a0fundamental\u00a0problem with the\u00a0truism. As\u00a0Innanen\u00a0notes, we aren\u2019t training people to step into the new roles.\u00a0So,\u00a0all those who have done the regular work for years have no training to do what will be in demand, even if you accept the idea that there\u00a0will be this great amount of strategic work to do.<\/p>\n Another\u00a0problem: being able to do high-end work requires critical thinking skills. It\u00a0requires\u00a0experience\u00a0and seeing\u00a0patterns that can be extended into new situations. Yet today much of that\u00a0experience\u00a0is dwindling as AI and automation does\u00a0more and more.\u00a0<\/p>\n So even if you believe that AI can never do strategic thinking (I don\u2019t), you are looking at a future where we have a bunch of lawyers who no longer think like lawyers but like lawyer bots.<\/p>\n The Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n I wholeheartedly\u00a0agree with\u00a0Innanen\u00a0that law firms and the profession better start asking the hard questions about AI instead of racing to get the newest and\u00a0shiniest\u00a0new addition. We need to stop getting AI tools just to say we have them. We need to think\u00a0long and hard about where we are going.\u00a0<\/p>\n Innanen\u2019s\u00a0right\u00a0when he\u00a0says\u00a0lawyers\u00a0are like cockroaches,\u00a0we\u2019re survivors. But cockroaches adapt and evolve. They don\u2019t spend decades doing the same thing while their environment transforms around\u00a0them.<\/p>\n We\u00a0need to start asking questions of ourselves and AI vendors that are uncomfortable. Questions\u00a0like what does it mean for our workforce when what they do will be automated? What new skills should we be developing in our workforce? What will our business model look like when the leverage model is gone,\u00a0replaced\u00a0largely by AI?\u00a0<\/p>\n And maybe most importantly, what will it mean to be a lawyer and legal professional in the future? What will our new value proposition be?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s\u00a0start asking hard questions instead of business as\u00a0usual.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2023\/10\/GettyImages-1576376974-300x190.jpg?resize=300%2C190&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n
\n