{"id":143930,"date":"2026-02-12T16:37:38","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T00:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/02\/12\/critical-training-in-the-age-of-genai-may-require-training-the-trainers\/"},"modified":"2026-02-12T16:37:38","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T00:37:38","slug":"critical-training-in-the-age-of-genai-may-require-training-the-trainers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/02\/12\/critical-training-in-the-age-of-genai-may-require-training-the-trainers\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Training In The Age Of GenAI May Require Training The Trainers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One of the big worries in the age of AI is training younger lawyers, as I and others have <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2025\/07\/genai-and-critical-thinking-the-problem-is-the-problem\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">discussed before<\/a>. But a new <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lexisnexis.co.uk\/insights\/the-mentorship-gap\/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">LexisNexis study<\/a> suggests we\u2019ve been focusing on the wrong thing: the more critical training may need to be of experienced lawyers instead. Training the trainers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>LexisNexis surveyed 873 legal professionals in the U.K. in January of this year.\u00a0 Like many things with GenAI, the resulting study was long on questions but short on answers. That\u2019s not necessarily a criticism. The truth is we just don\u2019t know a lot of the answers yet. Which makes the notion of training the trainers perhaps key.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s some key statistics from the study:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>65% say legal AI tools allow them to work faster.<\/li>\n<li>72% believe that younger lawyers using GenAI will have trouble developing reasoning and critical thinking skills.<\/li>\n<li>69% worry that new lawyers lack \u201cverification and source-checking skills.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Okay. Not terribly surprising although one would think verification and cite-checking skills would be one thing beginning lawyers ought to be able to do. Perhaps the concern is not that they don\u2019t have the skills, it\u2019s that they won\u2019t use them.<\/p>\n<p>These findings align with expectations. Indeed, they are remarkably consistent with a <a href=\"https:\/\/legal.thomsonreuters.com\/en\/insights\/white-papers\/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-critical-thinking?gatedContent=%252Fcontent%252Fewp-marketing-websites%252Flegal%252Fgl%252Fen%252Finsights%252Fwhite-papers%252Fthe-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-critical-thinking&amp;form=thankyou\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">white paper<\/a> by one of LexisNexis\u2019 main competitors, Thomson Reuters, about <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2025\/12\/thomson-reuters-white-paper-the-future-is-here-its-just-not-evenly-distributed\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">which I wrote<\/a> back in December of last year. But the study revealed something more troubling.<\/p>\n<p><strong>But Wait, There\u2019s More<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s one surprising finding: only 29% believe that AI helps them produce higher quality work and only 2% \u2014 2%! \u2014 believes AI strengthens their learning.<\/p>\n<p>Think about what this suggests: it suggests the main value of AI is that it helps us produce work faster, not necessarily better. And almost all agree that its use doesn\u2019t help them learn. Meaning it doesn\u2019t help them be better lawyers.<\/p>\n<p>The study identifies the problem: \u201cpouring over lengthy contracts, interrogating every cause, and immersing yourself in case law may not be glamourous, but these tasks have traditionally been how legal judgement is formed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And if this means AI will do a lot of this work and those skills aren\u2019t developed, the long-term result, assuming these statistics reflect reality not just impressions, can only mean one thing: lower quality lawyering.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Thinking Partner?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The study does propose a solution: getting young lawyers to treat GenAI as a \u201cthinking partner\u201d in doing legal work. Like a lot of platitudes, it\u2019s a catchy phrase but the study is a little short on how we get harried associates under time stress to do just that.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, it will be too easy to let a \u201cthinking partner\u201d do thinking for you especially when pressed for time. And if you don\u2019t have critical thinking skills already and confidence in your own thinking, it\u2019s likely you will just accept what a bot tells you as right. Over reliance and lack of learning.<\/p>\n<p>As one of the study participants put it, \u201cNo critical reasoning, no belief in themselves and no confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>So, What\u2019s the Answer?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As one of my mentors once put it, the problem is the problem. And as reflected by the alignment of the LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters studies, certain realties are clear. For example, young lawyers are going to use GenAI no matter what we do.<\/p>\n<p>Another reality, as one of the LexisNexis participants put it, \u201cwe need to be deliberate about how we build judgment and strategic thinking alongside technical capability.\u201d Certainly, true but how do we do that: \u201cHow do firms redesign early legal careers so judgment is built not bypassed? How do they embed verification, accuracy and critical reasoning in an AI-enabled workflow?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Reading through the comments from the participants, I couldn\u2019t help but think there is no consensus. Some say more collaboration. Some say being clear on objectives and providing context. Some say teaching how to prompt. Some say guided decision making and structured feedback. Some say embed the right mindset.<\/p>\n<p>I even know a lawyer who runs a small firm who once told me we could just ban the use of GenAI until a lawyer has two or three years of experience. Nice idea, not very enforceable or practical as client demands for use of time saving GenAI tools ratchet up.<\/p>\n<p>All good ideas but they all assume that more experienced lawyers can provide just these kinds of skills. And that assumption may not necessarily be correct. Sure, more experienced lawyers who are familiar with GenAI tools and know how to use them can formulate better prompts and spot AI slop when they see it. But how many experienced lawyers have that underlying familiarity? And if they don\u2019t have it, how can they mentor younger lawyers correctly?<\/p>\n<p>So, we need to start with the notion that older, more experienced lawyers need AI training just as much if not more than younger lawyers. \u201cThey need to understand the strengths and limitations of AI, feel confident using it responsibly, and know how to review and refine outputs.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Armed with these skills, then and only then can they mentor young lawyers using GenAI tools to develop the critical thinking skills and abilities they will need to perform well in the future. Moreover, firms will need to realize that mentoring takes time and investment in the future that let\u2019s face it, a lot of firms are not known for.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Real Life Example<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>How could this work in real life? In today\u2019s world, an associate is asked to do a first draft of a brief. They take it to the partner who marks it up with a red pen and sends it back. But in the future what will be needed is more from the partner. The partner will need to be able to spot if it looks like the associate over relied on GenAI or that the cites don\u2019t look or sound right. The partner will need to sit down with the associates and explain how they caught that overuse, why it didn\u2019t look right, and the consequences of that both with the client and the courts.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Commitment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>That takes a commitment that\u2019s not there right now. The study points out an interesting gap in this regard about technology perceptions: 51% of the associates say keeping pace with technological developments is a top challenge while only 34% of the leaders do so. In other words, while associates see technology as a top challenge, their leaders don\u2019t share that concern. How can they lead and train if they aren\u2019t equally invested in understanding what\u2019s coming?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So, let\u2019s start there: instead of looking at what we need to do to train young lawyers about technology that\u2019s changing weekly if not daily, let\u2019s develop a mindset among more experienced lawyers about technology and its impact. To get there we need an attitudinal change: more experienced lawyers need to commit to learning and keeping up with technology. They need to commit to mentoring new lawyers in different and more intense ways. It means they need to seek to define what good lawyering is on a more consistent basis as <a href=\"https:\/\/jordanfurlong.substack.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Jordan Furlong<\/a>, one of the most astute observers of the legal scene <a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https:\/\/jordanfurlong.substack.com\/p\/how-to-surface-lawyers-professional&amp;ved=2ahUKEwivspnH4dGSAxXnl4kEHdrxJHsQFnoECCMQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw3f6bLJFrIn3LMmJ719hMpr\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">recently talked<\/a> about. (Furlong will be a Keynote speaker at the upcoming ABA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techshow.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">TechShow<\/a> in March. His topic: <em>The Lawyers We\u2019ll Need: Preparing the Legal Profession for a Post-AI World<\/em>). They need to commit to their own training, something that they heretofore have not spent much time or energy on.<\/p>\n<p>Law firms will have to recognize that future lawyers aren\u2019t going to learn to be good lawyers in traditional ways. They have to recognize that young lawyers are going to use GenAI tools and that that doesn\u2019t mean they are necessarily going to produce better work faster. In fact, it may mean just the opposite. \u00a0And they have to know that young lawyers are going to make mistakes, mistakes that may be different than the past that need to be spotted and fixed.<\/p>\n<p>That takes an investment in the long-term development of lawyers in a hands-on way. If we want young lawyers to develop the skills experienced lawyers have, let\u2019s start with training the trainers.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n<p><em><strong>Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener nofollow\">TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The post <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/02\/critical-training-in-the-age-of-genai-may-require-training-the-trainers\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Critical Training In The Age Of GenAI May Require Training The Trainers<\/a> appeared first on <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>One of the big worries in the age of AI is training younger lawyers, as I and others have <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2025\/07\/genai-and-critical-thinking-the-problem-is-the-problem\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">discussed before<\/a>. But a new <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lexisnexis.co.uk\/insights\/the-mentorship-gap\/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">LexisNexis study<\/a> suggests we\u2019ve been focusing on the wrong thing: the more critical training may need to be of experienced lawyers instead. Training the trainers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>LexisNexis surveyed 873 legal professionals in the U.K. in January of this year.\u00a0 Like many things with GenAI, the resulting study was long on questions but short on answers. That\u2019s not necessarily a criticism. The truth is we just don\u2019t know a lot of the answers yet. Which makes the notion of training the trainers perhaps key.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s some key statistics from the study:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>65% say legal AI tools allow them to work faster.<\/li>\n<li>72% believe that younger lawyers using GenAI will have trouble developing reasoning and critical thinking skills.<\/li>\n<li>69% worry that new lawyers lack \u201cverification and source-checking skills.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Okay. Not terribly surprising although one would think verification and cite-checking skills would be one thing beginning lawyers ought to be able to do. Perhaps the concern is not that they don\u2019t have the skills, it\u2019s that they won\u2019t use them.<\/p>\n<p>These findings align with expectations. Indeed, they are remarkably consistent with a <a href=\"https:\/\/legal.thomsonreuters.com\/en\/insights\/white-papers\/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-critical-thinking?gatedContent=%252Fcontent%252Fewp-marketing-websites%252Flegal%252Fgl%252Fen%252Finsights%252Fwhite-papers%252Fthe-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-critical-thinking&amp;form=thankyou\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">white paper<\/a> by one of LexisNexis\u2019 main competitors, Thomson Reuters, about <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2025\/12\/thomson-reuters-white-paper-the-future-is-here-its-just-not-evenly-distributed\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">which I wrote<\/a> back in December of last year. But the study revealed something more troubling.<\/p>\n<p><strong>But Wait, There\u2019s More<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s one surprising finding: only 29% believe that AI helps them produce higher quality work and only 2% \u2014 2%! \u2014 believes AI strengthens their learning.<\/p>\n<p>Think about what this suggests: it suggests the main value of AI is that it helps us produce work faster, not necessarily better. And almost all agree that its use doesn\u2019t help them learn. Meaning it doesn\u2019t help them be better lawyers.<\/p>\n<p>The study identifies the problem: \u201cpouring over lengthy contracts, interrogating every cause, and immersing yourself in case law may not be glamourous, but these tasks have traditionally been how legal judgement is formed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And if this means AI will do a lot of this work and those skills aren\u2019t developed, the long-term result, assuming these statistics reflect reality not just impressions, can only mean one thing: lower quality lawyering.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Thinking Partner?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The study does propose a solution: getting young lawyers to treat GenAI as a \u201cthinking partner\u201d in doing legal work. Like a lot of platitudes, it\u2019s a catchy phrase but the study is a little short on how we get harried associates under time stress to do just that.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, it will be too easy to let a \u201cthinking partner\u201d do thinking for you especially when pressed for time. And if you don\u2019t have critical thinking skills already and confidence in your own thinking, it\u2019s likely you will just accept what a bot tells you as right. Over reliance and lack of learning.<\/p>\n<p>As one of the study participants put it, \u201cNo critical reasoning, no belief in themselves and no confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>So, What\u2019s the Answer?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As one of my mentors once put it, the problem is the problem. And as reflected by the alignment of the LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters studies, certain realties are clear. For example, young lawyers are going to use GenAI no matter what we do.<\/p>\n<p>Another reality, as one of the LexisNexis participants put it, \u201cwe need to be deliberate about how we build judgment and strategic thinking alongside technical capability.\u201d Certainly, true but how do we do that: \u201cHow do firms redesign early legal careers so judgment is built not bypassed? How do they embed verification, accuracy and critical reasoning in an AI-enabled workflow?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Reading through the comments from the participants, I couldn\u2019t help but think there is no consensus. Some say more collaboration. Some say being clear on objectives and providing context. Some say teaching how to prompt. Some say guided decision making and structured feedback. Some say embed the right mindset.<\/p>\n<p>I even know a lawyer who runs a small firm who once told me we could just ban the use of GenAI until a lawyer has two or three years of experience. Nice idea, not very enforceable or practical as client demands for use of time saving GenAI tools ratchet up.<\/p>\n<p>All good ideas but they all assume that more experienced lawyers can provide just these kinds of skills. And that assumption may not necessarily be correct. Sure, more experienced lawyers who are familiar with GenAI tools and know how to use them can formulate better prompts and spot AI slop when they see it. But how many experienced lawyers have that underlying familiarity? And if they don\u2019t have it, how can they mentor younger lawyers correctly?<\/p>\n<p>So, we need to start with the notion that older, more experienced lawyers need AI training just as much if not more than younger lawyers. \u201cThey need to understand the strengths and limitations of AI, feel confident using it responsibly, and know how to review and refine outputs.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Armed with these skills, then and only then can they mentor young lawyers using GenAI tools to develop the critical thinking skills and abilities they will need to perform well in the future. Moreover, firms will need to realize that mentoring takes time and investment in the future that let\u2019s face it, a lot of firms are not known for.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Real Life Example<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>How could this work in real life? In today\u2019s world, an associate is asked to do a first draft of a brief. They take it to the partner who marks it up with a red pen and sends it back. But in the future what will be needed is more from the partner. The partner will need to be able to spot if it looks like the associate over relied on GenAI or that the cites don\u2019t look or sound right. The partner will need to sit down with the associates and explain how they caught that overuse, why it didn\u2019t look right, and the consequences of that both with the client and the courts.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Commitment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>That takes a commitment that\u2019s not there right now. The study points out an interesting gap in this regard about technology perceptions: 51% of the associates say keeping pace with technological developments is a top challenge while only 34% of the leaders do so. In other words, while associates see technology as a top challenge, their leaders don\u2019t share that concern. How can they lead and train if they aren\u2019t equally invested in understanding what\u2019s coming?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So, let\u2019s start there: instead of looking at what we need to do to train young lawyers about technology that\u2019s changing weekly if not daily, let\u2019s develop a mindset among more experienced lawyers about technology and its impact. To get there we need an attitudinal change: more experienced lawyers need to commit to learning and keeping up with technology. They need to commit to mentoring new lawyers in different and more intense ways. It means they need to seek to define what good lawyering is on a more consistent basis as <a href=\"https:\/\/jordanfurlong.substack.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Jordan Furlong<\/a>, one of the most astute observers of the legal scene <a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https:\/\/jordanfurlong.substack.com\/p\/how-to-surface-lawyers-professional&amp;ved=2ahUKEwivspnH4dGSAxXnl4kEHdrxJHsQFnoECCMQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw3f6bLJFrIn3LMmJ719hMpr\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">recently talked<\/a> about. (Furlong will be a Keynote speaker at the upcoming ABA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techshow.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">TechShow<\/a> in March. His topic: <em>The Lawyers We\u2019ll Need: Preparing the Legal Profession for a Post-AI World<\/em>). They need to commit to their own training, something that they heretofore have not spent much time or energy on.<\/p>\n<p>Law firms will have to recognize that future lawyers aren\u2019t going to learn to be good lawyers in traditional ways. They have to recognize that young lawyers are going to use GenAI tools and that that doesn\u2019t mean they are necessarily going to produce better work faster. In fact, it may mean just the opposite. \u00a0And they have to know that young lawyers are going to make mistakes, mistakes that may be different than the past that need to be spotted and fixed.<\/p>\n<p>That takes an investment in the long-term development of lawyers in a hands-on way. If we want young lawyers to develop the skills experienced lawyers have, let\u2019s start with training the trainers.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n<p><em><strong>Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener nofollow\">TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The post <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/02\/critical-training-in-the-age-of-genai-may-require-training-the-trainers\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Critical Training In The Age Of GenAI May Require Training The Trainers<\/a> appeared first on <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One of the big worries in the age of AI is training younger lawyers, as I and others have discussed before. But a new LexisNexis study suggests we\u2019ve been focusing on the wrong thing: the more critical training may need to be of experienced lawyers instead. Training the trainers. Key Findings LexisNexis surveyed 873 legal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"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-143930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143930","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=143930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}