{"id":140495,"date":"2026-01-01T16:33:16","date_gmt":"2026-01-02T00:33:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/01\/7-predictions-for-2026-that-should-come-true-but-wont\/"},"modified":"2026-01-01T16:33:16","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T00:33:16","slug":"7-predictions-for-2026-that-should-come-true-but-wont","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/01\/7-predictions-for-2026-that-should-come-true-but-wont\/","title":{"rendered":"7 Predictions For 2026 That Should Come True But Won\u2019t"},"content":{"rendered":"

Who could have predicted what 2025 would bring? As the legal profession kicked off last year, we expected another tour de force of Biglaw standing up for those targeted by the Trump administration like the firms did in 2017<\/a>, we figured that AI hallucinations would become a thing of the past as lawyers learned from others<\/a>, and we felt confident that at least we wouldn\u2019t be talking about summer associates biting people at elite law firms<\/a>. <\/p>\n

We flopped on all of those.<\/p>\n

In fact, this year managed to throw doubt on the Third<\/a>, Fourteenth<\/a>, and Twenty-Second<\/a> Amendments, foiling many a 2025 Bingo card.<\/p>\n

But 2026 is a new year! With hours to go on this steaming dumpster fire of a year in legal, let us usher in the next year with a bolus of positivity and gaze into our crystal balls to predict the many ways the legal profession will make the world better over the coming year. Though to avoid the graveyard of whiffed predictions we\u2019ll discuss this time next year, let\u2019s focus exclusively on the predictions that in any rational profession would come true in 2026, with the full understanding that \u2014 as lawyers \u2014 absolutely none of this will actually happen.<\/p>\n

The Death Of The Billable Hour<\/h2>\n

Rumors of the billable hour\u2019s demise have been greatly exaggerated for decades. Forecasting the end of hourly billing is a cheap way to spice up a prediction roundup. The thousand, \u201cwell, actually, the billable hour isn\u2019t going anywhere\u201d takes this item will trigger generates enough smug self-satisfaction to keep offices warm for weeks. But there\u2019s something different about it this time, right? Famous last words in the prediction racket\u2026 but that\u2019s why we\u2019re focused on predictions that aren\u2019t going to come true.<\/p>\n

Billing by the hour remained strong in 2025<\/a>, and probably will into 2026. But it has shown some cracks and the chisel is the growing adoption of artificial intelligence. <\/p>\n

Every previous death sentence for time-based billing rested upon client pressure and firm competition, two factors that grossly underestimate the legal profession\u2019s fear and laziness. Or \u201ccaution\u201d or \u201ccommitment to tradition\u201d or whatever kinder euphemism you want. Clients might have thought alternative fee arrangements made more sense, but it\u2019s daunting work to go to the Board and justify handing over lump sums of money when hourly billing is a tried and true methodology. And firms might have wanted to seek some advantage over their rivals by offering less burdensome pricing, but it\u2019s scary to commit to a fixed price that could leave the firm underpaid on an assignment. <\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence provides an exogenous kick in the ass. According to the Harbor Law Department Survey<\/a>, clients spent 2025 jumping on the AI bandwagon. Some 85 percent of corporate legal teams now have dedicated AI resources<\/a>, and they\u2019re using that newfound capacity as leverage to demand alternative fee arrangements, consolidate their panels, and pull work in-house. Outside counsel spending projections cratered from 58 percent expecting increases to just 37 percent. At the same time, law firms have watched AI eat into many of the time-consuming tasks that used to be the bread and butter of law firm leverage. A DISCO white paper<\/a> found that even as law firms embrace AI tools, there\u2019s one lingering fear: \u201cthe premise that speed will reduce revenue remains a challenge<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ethics rules prevent law firms from billing for the time that might have been<\/em> in an alternate universe without an AI tool crunching deposition transcripts. While clients would love to see the firm\u2019s 300 hour bill drop to 30, law firms aren\u2019t in the business of giving away money like that.<\/p>\n

Law firms finally face genuine pressure to work out the value of the output<\/em> instead of charging clients for inputs. <\/p>\n

But instead, they\u2019ll probably just adopt a $10,000 billable hour<\/a>. Because if lawyers invented the internal combustion engine, we\u2019d be driving mechanical horses instead of cars.<\/p>\n

Law Schools End The Accelerated Recruiting Pipeline<\/h2>\n

Remember when law school grades mattered? Maybe not for the Yalies out there, but for the rest of us. Back in the day, employers actually waited to see how students performed before hiring them. <\/p>\n

\u201cOK Boomer,\u201d say current law students.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s true! We used to wait for a whole year\u2019s worth of grades before getting an offer for the summer before 3L year. The current law school recruiting timeline now begins roughly fifteen minutes after orientation. Biglaw has started handing out offers before students finish their first final<\/a>, replacing grades with vibe recruiting \u2014 complete with firms handing out walking around money<\/a> to students that they\u2019ve already worked with, asking these older students to identify and recruit promising potential summers.<\/p>\n

The weird part is that nobody wants this. The law schools hate it. The law firms aren\u2019t enthusiastic about it. The students are overwhelmed. And yet no one can do anything about it.<\/p>\n

Any solution would involve collective action \u2014 from either the law schools, the law firms, or both \u2014 and no one appears willing to risk being accused of collusion. Without action from the participants in this catastrophe, the only alternative would be the regulators. If state licensing authorities created some sort of minimum check on law clerk qualifications it could put the brakes on the accelerated cycle, but the pressure on licensing is currently arrayed toward reducing obstacles to practice rather than imposing more. <\/p>\n

In a sane 2026, the law schools manage to get together and impose a requirement that firms can\u2019t recruit students until the first semester grades arrive. <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Will Go Back To Writing Actual Opinions Instead Of Post-It Notes<\/h2>\n

In a probably apocryphal story, Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court, \u201cJohn Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.\u201d And that was before a bunch of late-1970s, early-1980s law review articles invented \u201cunitary executive theory.\u201d <\/p>\n

Even if the Jackson quote never actually happened, the point remains sound: the Supreme Court\u2019s authority derives entirely from the persuasive power of its written opinions. That\u2019s it. Nine unelected people in robes reshape American life because we collectively accept that they\u2019ve issued reasoned opinions.<\/p>\n

Faced with the daunting task of imposing ideas like the unitary executive theory \u2014 concepts divorced from any reasonable textual or historical reading \u2014 the current Court simply dispensed with the \u201cpersuasive power of written opinions\u201d thing and decided to just issue rulings under the doctrine of \u201cbecause we said so.\u201d<\/p>\n

The shadow docket became the primary vehicle for reshaping American law this year, with terse orders issued without briefing, argument, or explanation. Once upon a time, these orders were understood to be glorified preliminary injunctions, but this year the Supreme Court majority voiced its frustration when lower courts kept applying actual written precedent instead of divining the vibes from unsigned orders. Calvinball par excellence<\/a>. It probably doesn\u2019t hurt that issuing all their rulings this way affords them flexibility to run it all back under a future Democratic president<\/a> and say, \u201chold on, we didn\u2019t actually RULE on any of this stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court majority\u2019s embrace of legislating by post-it note carries dangerous consequences. Several federal judges called bullshit<\/a>, placing the rise in violent threats<\/a> aimed at lower court justices in part on the Supreme Court\u2019s unwillingness to articulate its decisions. When SCOTUS overturns lower courts without explaining itself, it allows the administration free rein to drag judges as wild-eyed activists worthy of going to \u201cwar\u201d against<\/a>. As one judge told NBC News: \u201cThey don\u2019t have our backs.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the threats mount and the administration places the Supreme Court in increasingly uncomfortable positions with its loony requests, 2026 should bring out the latent pride of the Court\u2019s conservatives. <\/p>\n

The majority made its decision; now let them explain it.<\/p>\n

But they won\u2019t.<\/p>\n

More States Will Consider Sidelining The Bar Exam<\/h2>\n

The bar exam is a flaming sack of Scantron-bubbled garbage. We\u2019ve known this for decades. It\u2019s a generalist exam in an era of specialists. It\u2019s a doctrinal memory test in a profession that \u2014 rightly \u2014 considers practicing off the dome as malpractice. The bar exam exists to limit the supply of attorneys and protect incumbents from competition.<\/p>\n

This year, Utah went ahead <\/a>and created an actually sensible alternative licensing path. Imagine an exam based on the principle that an experienced, competent attorney should be able to pass it without studying\u2026 because that\u2019s what minimum competence<\/em> would suggest. What a concept!<\/p>\n

Utah\u2019s proposal allows prospective lawyers to replace the bar exam with a combination of formal education, supervised professional experience, and this real minimum competence exam. <\/p>\n

Other states should follow. But then we wouldn\u2019t have as many Rule Against Perpetuities jokes.<\/p>\n

Biglaw Firms Realize That Cooperation With Authoritarianism Isn\u2019t Sustainable<\/h2>\n

Throughout 2025, Biglaw firms mostly operated between the art of strategic quiet and active collaboration. <\/p>\n

After law firms frustrated his first term\u2019s wildest acts of overreach, Trump entered the White House in 2025 in full \u201ckill all the lawyers\u201d mode. Firing off executive orders designed to destroy global law firms, Trump managed to get his wish with nine Biglaw firms confessing past disloyalty to the crown and pledging millions in pro bono commitments to conservative causes<\/a>. Other firms took the opportunity to erase references to diversity or other vaguely progressive work<\/a> from their websites. And many more just stopped representing vulnerable clients facing the administration\u2019s wrath<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The surrendering firms took their lumps. Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp got heckled at a Bar Foundation gala<\/a>, with another attendee yelling \u201cFOR TRUMP?!\u201d every time he mentioned their public service accomplishments. Young lawyers were not happy<\/a>. Clients pulled business from firms that showed no willingness to stand up for themselves<\/a>. <\/p>\n

When it all shakes out, the firms will likely end the year no worse for the ordeal.<\/p>\n

The legal profession is supposed to be the last line of defense for the rule of law. Lawyers in other countries have marched through tear gas to defend judicial independence. Many of America\u2019s most elite legal institutions could barely muster a strongly worded op-ed. <\/p>\n

But the thing about Faustian bargains is that they\u2019re rarely one-time transactions. As we warned when these deals were announced<\/a>, dealing with a bad faith actor means they own you. Even if they don\u2019t alter the deal further, the fear guides the relationship. <\/p>\n

Perhaps the administration has moved on from harassing law firms. Probably not though. In 2026, we should see firms start pushing back against the White House.<\/p>\n

However, given the expected financials from the surrendering firms, it\u2019s more likely other firms decide complicity has its perks.<\/p>\n

Lawyers Will Stop Falling For AI Hallucinations<\/h2>\n

Honestly, one would\u2019ve thought lawyers could\u2019ve cleared this one in 2025, but apparently not. When the first AI hallucination story broke in 2023<\/a>, the intense public ridicule led many to believe the whole profession had been duly chastened. Some 700 hallucination filings later<\/a>, that didn\u2019t pan out. <\/p>\n

AI burned lawyers across the industry this year. The MyPillow lawyers got dinged<\/a>. K&L Gates and Ellis George<\/a> got dinged. Butler Snow got kicked off a case<\/a>. A California court declined to award fees to opposing counsel<\/a> for failing to spot<\/em> the other side\u2019s fake citations. The judges got in on the action too. A Georgia case got decided based off of hallucinated caselaw<\/a>. Two federal judges had to withdraw hallucinated opinions<\/a>. <\/p>\n

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

This should not be hard. The rule is simple: if you cite a case, verify that the case exists. This was true before AI. It\u2019s true after AI. The existence of a technology that confidently fabricates sources does not relieve you of the obligation to check your work. <\/p>\n

Everyone understands this in theory. But in practice, AI may well be making us dumber<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This should end in 2026. Between technological advances to reduce hallucinations and lawyers rightfully worried about their reputations, this should end. <\/p>\n

But I said that of 2025 too.<\/p>\n

Kim Kardashian Will Finally Give Up On The Bar Exam<\/h2>\n

Kim Kardashian\u2019s ongoing quest to become a lawyer through California\u2019s apprenticeship program hasn\u2019t worked out so far. She failed the bar exam<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Even though the psychics promised she\u2019d pass<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The bar exam is a problematic professional gatekeeper, but Kardashian is the best argument for the existence of an exam of some form<\/a>. Not the stupid one we have, but if the system is going to allow a path to licensure that doesn\u2019t run through law school there has to be a test of genuine minimum competence. Perhaps she could try her hand at Utah\u2019s new system?<\/p>\n

But assuming California isn\u2019t junking the bar exam \u2014 and they\u2019ve already disastrously tried to fix the bar exam<\/a> and then committed to the worst of all possible outcomes by going BACK to the old bar exam<\/a> \u2014 could 2026 be the year that Kardashian refuses to keep investing her energy in this busted system?<\/p>\n

Kardashian wants to help the wrongfully convicted and excessively sentenced, and the best way for her to do that is to keep being a billionaire and funding the lawyers who are already out there doing this important work. There should be no shame in becoming the deep pocketed philanthropist behind a noble cause. <\/p>\n

The Kim Kardashian Center For Justice has a nice ring to it. <\/p>\n

The Point Of All This<\/h2>\n

The legal profession has a remarkable capacity to identify problems and then do absolutely nothing about them. But we can hope. Hey, sometimes, if people keep pointing out the right path loudly and repeatedly, things can change. <\/p>\n

Maybe in 2027.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a> is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter<\/a> or 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 7 Predictions For 2026 That Should Come True But Won\u2019t<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Who could have predicted what 2025 would bring? As the legal profession kicked off last year, we expected another tour de force of Biglaw standing up for those targeted by the Trump administration like the firms did in 2017<\/a>, we figured that AI hallucinations would become a thing of the past as lawyers learned from others<\/a>, and we felt confident that at least we wouldn\u2019t be talking about summer associates biting people at elite law firms<\/a>. <\/p>\n

We flopped on all of those.<\/p>\n

In fact, this year managed to throw doubt on the Third<\/a>, Fourteenth<\/a>, and Twenty-Second<\/a> Amendments, foiling many a 2025 Bingo card.<\/p>\n

But 2026 is a new year! With hours to go on this steaming dumpster fire of a year in legal, let us usher in the next year with a bolus of positivity and gaze into our crystal balls to predict the many ways the legal profession will make the world better over the coming year. Though to avoid the graveyard of whiffed predictions we\u2019ll discuss this time next year, let\u2019s focus exclusively on the predictions that in any rational profession would come true in 2026, with the full understanding that \u2014 as lawyers \u2014 absolutely none of this will actually happen.<\/p>\n

The Death Of The Billable Hour<\/h2>\n

Rumors of the billable hour\u2019s demise have been greatly exaggerated for decades. Forecasting the end of hourly billing is a cheap way to spice up a prediction roundup. The thousand, \u201cwell, actually, the billable hour isn\u2019t going anywhere\u201d takes this item will trigger generates enough smug self-satisfaction to keep offices warm for weeks. But there\u2019s something different about it this time, right? Famous last words in the prediction racket\u2026 but that\u2019s why we\u2019re focused on predictions that aren\u2019t going to come true.<\/p>\n

Billing by the hour remained strong in 2025<\/a>, and probably will into 2026. But it has shown some cracks and the chisel is the growing adoption of artificial intelligence. <\/p>\n

Every previous death sentence for time-based billing rested upon client pressure and firm competition, two factors that grossly underestimate the legal profession\u2019s fear and laziness. Or \u201ccaution\u201d or \u201ccommitment to tradition\u201d or whatever kinder euphemism you want. Clients might have thought alternative fee arrangements made more sense, but it\u2019s daunting work to go to the Board and justify handing over lump sums of money when hourly billing is a tried and true methodology. And firms might have wanted to seek some advantage over their rivals by offering less burdensome pricing, but it\u2019s scary to commit to a fixed price that could leave the firm underpaid on an assignment. <\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence provides an exogenous kick in the ass. According to the Harbor Law Department Survey<\/a>, clients spent 2025 jumping on the AI bandwagon. Some 85 percent of corporate legal teams now have dedicated AI resources<\/a>, and they\u2019re using that newfound capacity as leverage to demand alternative fee arrangements, consolidate their panels, and pull work in-house. Outside counsel spending projections cratered from 58 percent expecting increases to just 37 percent. At the same time, law firms have watched AI eat into many of the time-consuming tasks that used to be the bread and butter of law firm leverage. A DISCO white paper<\/a> found that even as law firms embrace AI tools, there\u2019s one lingering fear: \u201cthe premise that speed will reduce revenue remains a challenge<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ethics rules prevent law firms from billing for the time that might have been<\/em> in an alternate universe without an AI tool crunching deposition transcripts. While clients would love to see the firm\u2019s 300 hour bill drop to 30, law firms aren\u2019t in the business of giving away money like that.<\/p>\n

Law firms finally face genuine pressure to work out the value of the output<\/em> instead of charging clients for inputs. <\/p>\n

But instead, they\u2019ll probably just adopt a $10,000 billable hour<\/a>. Because if lawyers invented the internal combustion engine, we\u2019d be driving mechanical horses instead of cars.<\/p>\n

Law Schools End The Accelerated Recruiting Pipeline<\/h2>\n

Remember when law school grades mattered? Maybe not for the Yalies out there, but for the rest of us. Back in the day, employers actually waited to see how students performed before hiring them. <\/p>\n

\u201cOK Boomer,\u201d say current law students.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s true! We used to wait for a whole year\u2019s worth of grades before getting an offer for the summer before 3L year. The current law school recruiting timeline now begins roughly fifteen minutes after orientation. Biglaw has started handing out offers before students finish their first final<\/a>, replacing grades with vibe recruiting \u2014 complete with firms handing out walking around money<\/a> to students that they\u2019ve already worked with, asking these older students to identify and recruit promising potential summers.<\/p>\n

The weird part is that nobody wants this. The law schools hate it. The law firms aren\u2019t enthusiastic about it. The students are overwhelmed. And yet no one can do anything about it.<\/p>\n

Any solution would involve collective action \u2014 from either the law schools, the law firms, or both \u2014 and no one appears willing to risk being accused of collusion. Without action from the participants in this catastrophe, the only alternative would be the regulators. If state licensing authorities created some sort of minimum check on law clerk qualifications it could put the brakes on the accelerated cycle, but the pressure on licensing is currently arrayed toward reducing obstacles to practice rather than imposing more. <\/p>\n

In a sane 2026, the law schools manage to get together and impose a requirement that firms can\u2019t recruit students until the first semester grades arrive. <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Will Go Back To Writing Actual Opinions Instead Of Post-It Notes<\/h2>\n

In a probably apocryphal story, Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court, \u201cJohn Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.\u201d And that was before a bunch of late-1970s, early-1980s law review articles invented \u201cunitary executive theory.\u201d <\/p>\n

Even if the Jackson quote never actually happened, the point remains sound: the Supreme Court\u2019s authority derives entirely from the persuasive power of its written opinions. That\u2019s it. Nine unelected people in robes reshape American life because we collectively accept that they\u2019ve issued reasoned opinions.<\/p>\n

Faced with the daunting task of imposing ideas like the unitary executive theory \u2014 concepts divorced from any reasonable textual or historical reading \u2014 the current Court simply dispensed with the \u201cpersuasive power of written opinions\u201d thing and decided to just issue rulings under the doctrine of \u201cbecause we said so.\u201d<\/p>\n

The shadow docket became the primary vehicle for reshaping American law this year, with terse orders issued without briefing, argument, or explanation. Once upon a time, these orders were understood to be glorified preliminary injunctions, but this year the Supreme Court majority voiced its frustration when lower courts kept applying actual written precedent instead of divining the vibes from unsigned orders. Calvinball par excellence<\/a>. It probably doesn\u2019t hurt that issuing all their rulings this way affords them flexibility to run it all back under a future Democratic president<\/a> and say, \u201chold on, we didn\u2019t actually RULE on any of this stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court majority\u2019s embrace of legislating by post-it note carries dangerous consequences. Several federal judges called bullshit<\/a>, placing the rise in violent threats<\/a> aimed at lower court justices in part on the Supreme Court\u2019s unwillingness to articulate its decisions. When SCOTUS overturns lower courts without explaining itself, it allows the administration free rein to drag judges as wild-eyed activists worthy of going to \u201cwar\u201d against<\/a>. As one judge told NBC News: \u201cThey don\u2019t have our backs.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the threats mount and the administration places the Supreme Court in increasingly uncomfortable positions with its loony requests, 2026 should bring out the latent pride of the Court\u2019s conservatives. <\/p>\n

The majority made its decision; now let them explain it.<\/p>\n

But they won\u2019t.<\/p>\n

More States Will Consider Sidelining The Bar Exam<\/h2>\n

The bar exam is a flaming sack of Scantron-bubbled garbage. We\u2019ve known this for decades. It\u2019s a generalist exam in an era of specialists. It\u2019s a doctrinal memory test in a profession that \u2014 rightly \u2014 considers practicing off the dome as malpractice. The bar exam exists to limit the supply of attorneys and protect incumbents from competition.<\/p>\n

This year, Utah went ahead <\/a>and created an actually sensible alternative licensing path. Imagine an exam based on the principle that an experienced, competent attorney should be able to pass it without studying\u2026 because that\u2019s what minimum competence<\/em> would suggest. What a concept!<\/p>\n

Utah\u2019s proposal allows prospective lawyers to replace the bar exam with a combination of formal education, supervised professional experience, and this real minimum competence exam. <\/p>\n

Other states should follow. But then we wouldn\u2019t have as many Rule Against Perpetuities jokes.<\/p>\n

Biglaw Firms Realize That Cooperation With Authoritarianism Isn\u2019t Sustainable<\/h2>\n

Throughout 2025, Biglaw firms mostly operated between the art of strategic quiet and active collaboration. <\/p>\n

After law firms frustrated his first term\u2019s wildest acts of overreach, Trump entered the White House in 2025 in full \u201ckill all the lawyers\u201d mode. Firing off executive orders designed to destroy global law firms, Trump managed to get his wish with nine Biglaw firms confessing past disloyalty to the crown and pledging millions in pro bono commitments to conservative causes<\/a>. Other firms took the opportunity to erase references to diversity or other vaguely progressive work<\/a> from their websites. And many more just stopped representing vulnerable clients facing the administration\u2019s wrath<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The surrendering firms took their lumps. Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp got heckled at a Bar Foundation gala<\/a>, with another attendee yelling \u201cFOR TRUMP?!\u201d every time he mentioned their public service accomplishments. Young lawyers were not happy<\/a>. Clients pulled business from firms that showed no willingness to stand up for themselves<\/a>. <\/p>\n

When it all shakes out, the firms will likely end the year no worse for the ordeal.<\/p>\n

The legal profession is supposed to be the last line of defense for the rule of law. Lawyers in other countries have marched through tear gas to defend judicial independence. Many of America\u2019s most elite legal institutions could barely muster a strongly worded op-ed. <\/p>\n

But the thing about Faustian bargains is that they\u2019re rarely one-time transactions. As we warned when these deals were announced<\/a>, dealing with a bad faith actor means they own you. Even if they don\u2019t alter the deal further, the fear guides the relationship. <\/p>\n

Perhaps the administration has moved on from harassing law firms. Probably not though. In 2026, we should see firms start pushing back against the White House.<\/p>\n

However, given the expected financials from the surrendering firms, it\u2019s more likely other firms decide complicity has its perks.<\/p>\n

Lawyers Will Stop Falling For AI Hallucinations<\/h2>\n

Honestly, one would\u2019ve thought lawyers could\u2019ve cleared this one in 2025, but apparently not. When the first AI hallucination story broke in 2023<\/a>, the intense public ridicule led many to believe the whole profession had been duly chastened. Some 700 hallucination filings later<\/a>, that didn\u2019t pan out. <\/p>\n

AI burned lawyers across the industry this year. The MyPillow lawyers got dinged<\/a>. K&L Gates and Ellis George<\/a> got dinged. Butler Snow got kicked off a case<\/a>. A California court declined to award fees to opposing counsel<\/a> for failing to spot<\/em> the other side\u2019s fake citations. The judges got in on the action too. A Georgia case got decided based off of hallucinated caselaw<\/a>. Two federal judges had to withdraw hallucinated opinions<\/a>. <\/p>\n

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

This should not be hard. The rule is simple: if you cite a case, verify that the case exists. This was true before AI. It\u2019s true after AI. The existence of a technology that confidently fabricates sources does not relieve you of the obligation to check your work. <\/p>\n

Everyone understands this in theory. But in practice, AI may well be making us dumber<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This should end in 2026. Between technological advances to reduce hallucinations and lawyers rightfully worried about their reputations, this should end. <\/p>\n

But I said that of 2025 too.<\/p>\n

Kim Kardashian Will Finally Give Up On The Bar Exam<\/h2>\n

Kim Kardashian\u2019s ongoing quest to become a lawyer through California\u2019s apprenticeship program hasn\u2019t worked out so far. She failed the bar exam<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Even though the psychics promised she\u2019d pass<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The bar exam is a problematic professional gatekeeper, but Kardashian is the best argument for the existence of an exam of some form<\/a>. Not the stupid one we have, but if the system is going to allow a path to licensure that doesn\u2019t run through law school there has to be a test of genuine minimum competence. Perhaps she could try her hand at Utah\u2019s new system?<\/p>\n

But assuming California isn\u2019t junking the bar exam \u2014 and they\u2019ve already disastrously tried to fix the bar exam<\/a> and then committed to the worst of all possible outcomes by going BACK to the old bar exam<\/a> \u2014 could 2026 be the year that Kardashian refuses to keep investing her energy in this busted system?<\/p>\n

Kardashian wants to help the wrongfully convicted and excessively sentenced, and the best way for her to do that is to keep being a billionaire and funding the lawyers who are already out there doing this important work. There should be no shame in becoming the deep pocketed philanthropist behind a noble cause. <\/p>\n

The Kim Kardashian Center For Justice has a nice ring to it. <\/p>\n

The Point Of All This<\/h2>\n

The legal profession has a remarkable capacity to identify problems and then do absolutely nothing about them. But we can hope. Hey, sometimes, if people keep pointing out the right path loudly and repeatedly, things can change. <\/p>\n

Maybe in 2027.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a> is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter<\/a> or 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 7 Predictions For 2026 That Should Come True But Won\u2019t<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Who could have predicted what 2025 would bring? As the legal profession kicked off last year, we expected another tour de force of Biglaw standing up for those targeted by the Trump administration like the firms did in 2017, we figured that AI hallucinations would become a thing of the past as lawyers learned from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":140496,"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-140495","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\/2026\/01\/Headshot-300x200-8WDUbi.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140495","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=140495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140495\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/140496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}