{"id":164799,"date":"2026-10-09T14:10:04","date_gmt":"2026-10-09T22:10:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/09\/biglaw-firm-will-pay-associates-to-be-bad-at-ai-for-a-while-100-hours-to-be-precise\/"},"modified":"2026-10-09T14:10:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-09T22:10:04","slug":"biglaw-firm-will-pay-associates-to-be-bad-at-ai-for-a-while-100-hours-to-be-precise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/09\/biglaw-firm-will-pay-associates-to-be-bad-at-ai-for-a-while-100-hours-to-be-precise\/","title":{"rendered":"Biglaw Firm Will Pay Associates To Be Bad At AI For A While (100 Hours, To Be Precise)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There\u2019s a chasm between understanding how to ask the free version of ChatGPT to punch up your emails and building a useful AI workflow. A couple weeks ago, I went to a conference<\/a> with a panel titled \u201cThe Attorney\u2019s Guide to AI\u201d that was supposed to open lawyers\u2019 eyes to building skills and deploying agents, but had to pivot to \u201cso, you type in \u2018c-l-a-u-d-e-DOT-a-i\u2019 and enroll in a paid account.\u201d For a change, this isn\u2019t just a case of lawyers being hopelessly behind the curve on technology. The AI industry that needs to produce $6 trillion in revenue by 2030<\/a> to stay afloat only musters about $200 billion<\/a> right now, mostly because the 98 percent<\/a> of the public doesn\u2019t see anything about AI to justify paying more than\u2026 nothing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But for lawyers who understand how to elevate AI from the free sample platter to something that can provide actual value, they need time to experiment. The message from that same panel mentioned above was that every lawyer needs to start playing around, building skills, running tests, and figuring out what produces quality output.<\/p>\n

Ropes & Gray understands this, and will now let all of its associates count up to 100 hours of AI experimentation toward their billable targets<\/a>. It expands last year\u2019s pilot, which allowed first-years to put up to 400 of their 1,900 hours<\/a> toward playing with the robots.<\/p>\n

This is the right call whether you expect generative AI to become the future of the profession or an ultimately minor productivity lift. Whatever the merits of the technology, moving into the world of skills, agents, and vibecoding is disorienting and the only cure is setting aside time to experiment with it. Whatever the plan, it\u2019s going to fail in some spectacularly unexpected way on the first attempt. But if users keep iterating with the tool, it really does get better.<\/p>\n

Just like a first-year associate. <\/p>\n

One Ropes associate told Reuters, \u201cyou\u2019re investing a lot of time in it and you\u2019re not seeing a ton of efficiencies at first.\u201d That might be an understatement. Horror stories of hallucinations and sloppy drafting tend to arise from practitioners trying to use cheap AI as an \u201cEasy\u201d button. Vendors building professional legal tools have done a lot of work to tailor it to a lawyer\u2019s workflow. And it really is about \u201cworkflow.\u201d Even if the technology provides accurate results out of the box, that doesn\u2019t matter much if the way it does this robs the lawyer of meaningful judgment. The human brain can\u2019t move faster and if the AI process isn\u2019t giving the lawyer the necessary time to get the optimal<\/em> as opposed to bare minimum result<\/a>, that\u2019s a workflow problem better addressed before it becomes the client\u2019s problem. With individual tweaking, it can get even better.<\/p>\n

As long as attorneys don\u2019t become stereotypical \u201cscreamer\u201d partners. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Exclusive: Anthropic is updating its usage policy for the first time in over a year. The new rules prohibit sustained “abusive or cruel behavior” towards Claude & add new restrictions about propaganda campaigns, surveillance & weapon development. https:\/\/t.co\/GLsBeSR0fN<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Hayden Field (@haydenfield) October 8, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

This policy generated some snide criticism, with many tying the move to recent reports that the big AI providers \u2014 especially Anthropic \u2014 have leaned on religious leaders to accept their belief that AI may be a conscious life form<\/a>. Which is of course goofy. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

https:\/\/t.co\/mOFATdebu7<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/dlg8pS6k16<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) October 8, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

That said, people who thrill in abusing AI have more than a little of that \u201cserial killers always start out abusing animals\u201d energy. Along with terms like \u201cclanker,\u201d which seem to flirt with people seeking the dopamine hit of using racial slurs without actually using any<\/a>, there may be reason to crack down on treating AI as a sandbox for humanity\u2019s worst impulses beyond whether it\u2019s sentient or a fancy word calculator. And for the record, it\u2019s the latter.<\/p>\n

Look at me going off on tangents again.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the billable hour treats experimentation as a personal failing. Any associate who wants to commit a Tuesday afternoon to building skills knows they\u2019re losing time. Like sands through the hourglass so are our bonus targets. Giving associates time to learn AI without sacrificing their compensation will pay dividends down the road. It\u2019s a mechanism that Ropes has deployed in the past, like when it let associates bill up to 100 hours for diversity and inclusion work<\/a>. Of course, that was in 2021\u2026 before they deleted all the DEI info from their website<\/a> to avoid offending the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

Akerman has a more formalized process for giving credit for AI experimentation. At Akerman, playing with AI is another assignment that associates can pick up.<\/p>\n

Either way, these firms are making an investment. While the AI cult wants you to believe the technology will soon replace 100 percent<\/em> of attorney hours, the reality is probably somewhere between 5 and 20. Using the Ropes model, 100 hours is about 5 percent of a 1,900-hour target, so if the firm believes that well-oiled AI can boost productivity even 6 percent it\u2019s worth it.<\/p>\n

Put aside building and customizing with AI, the proliferation of AI tools requires some experimentation. We\u2019re entering the kitchen sink era<\/a> when it comes to AI tools. Firms are now willing to buy competing products and let teams and individual lawyers sort out their preferences. Beyond competition, products are announcing MCP connections to complementary products every day, creating a network of warp tubing like a Super Mario Bros. level. Figuring out which user interface the lawyer prefers to do all their work in is an experiment in itself.<\/p>\n

For now, these programs represent an exception rather than the rule. But every firm planning to get serious about AI has to come to grips with the fact that this tech isn\u2019t going to optimize itself. Lawyers need time to make it suit their style.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: The Grace To Dabble: Two Biglaw Firms Look To An AI-First Future<\/a>
Agentic AI And The QWERTY Problem<\/a><\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Biglaw Firm Will Pay Associates To Be Bad At AI For A While (100 Hours, To Be Precise)<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

There\u2019s a chasm between understanding how to ask the free version of ChatGPT to punch up your emails and building a useful AI workflow. A couple weeks ago, I went to a conference<\/a> with a panel titled \u201cThe Attorney\u2019s Guide to AI\u201d that was supposed to open lawyers\u2019 eyes to building skills and deploying agents, but had to pivot to \u201cso, you type in \u2018c-l-a-u-d-e-DOT-a-i\u2019 and enroll in a paid account.\u201d For a change, this isn\u2019t just a case of lawyers being hopelessly behind the curve on technology. The AI industry that needs to produce $6 trillion in revenue by 2030<\/a> to stay afloat only musters about $200 billion<\/a> right now, mostly because the 98 percent<\/a> of the public doesn\u2019t see anything about AI to justify paying more than\u2026 nothing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But for lawyers who understand how to elevate AI from the free sample platter to something that can provide actual value, they need time to experiment. The message from that same panel mentioned above was that every lawyer needs to start playing around, building skills, running tests, and figuring out what produces quality output.<\/p>\n

Ropes & Gray understands this, and will now let all of its associates count up to 100 hours of AI experimentation toward their billable targets<\/a>. It expands last year\u2019s pilot, which allowed first-years to put up to 400 of their 1,900 hours<\/a> toward playing with the robots.<\/p>\n

This is the right call whether you expect generative AI to become the future of the profession or an ultimately minor productivity lift. Whatever the merits of the technology, moving into the world of skills, agents, and vibecoding is disorienting and the only cure is setting aside time to experiment with it. Whatever the plan, it\u2019s going to fail in some spectacularly unexpected way on the first attempt. But if users keep iterating with the tool, it really does get better.<\/p>\n

Just like a first-year associate. <\/p>\n

One Ropes associate said<\/a>, \u201cyou\u2019re investing a lot of time in it and you\u2019re not seeing a ton of efficiencies at first.\u201d That might be an understatement. Horror stories of hallucinations and sloppy drafting tend to arise from practitioners trying to use cheap AI as an \u201cEasy\u201d button. Vendors building professional legal tools have done a lot of work to tailor it to a lawyer\u2019s workflow. And it really is about \u201cworkflow.\u201d Even if the technology provides accurate results out of the box, that doesn\u2019t matter much if the way it does this robs the lawyer of meaningful judgment. The human brain can\u2019t move faster and if the AI process isn\u2019t giving the lawyer the necessary time to get the optimal<\/em> as opposed to bare minimum result<\/a>, that\u2019s a workflow problem better addressed before it becomes the client\u2019s problem. With individual tweaking, it can get even better.<\/p>\n

As long as attorneys don\u2019t become stereotypical \u201cscreamer\u201d partners. <\/p>\n

This policy generated some snide criticism, with many tying the move to recent reports that the big AI providers \u2014 especially Anthropic \u2014 have leaned on religious leaders to accept their belief that AI may be a conscious life form<\/a>. Which is of course goofy. <\/p>\n

That said, people who thrill in abusing AI have more than a little of that \u201cserial killers always start out abusing animals\u201d energy. Along with terms like \u201cclanker,\u201d which seem to flirt with people seeking the dopamine hit of using racial slurs without actually using any<\/a>, there may be reason to crack down on treating AI as a sandbox for humanity\u2019s worst impulses beyond whether it\u2019s sentient or a fancy word calculator. And for the record, it\u2019s the latter.<\/p>\n

Look at me going off on tangents again.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the billable hour treats experimentation as a personal failing. Any associate who wants to commit a Tuesday afternoon to building skills knows they\u2019re losing time. Like sands through the hourglass so are our bonus targets. Giving associates time to learn AI without sacrificing their compensation will pay dividends down the road. It\u2019s a mechanism that Ropes has deployed in the past, like when it let associates bill up to 100 hours for diversity and inclusion work<\/a>. Of course, that was in 2021\u2026 before they deleted all the DEI info from their website<\/a> to avoid offending the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

Akerman has a more formalized process for giving credit for AI experimentation. At Akerman, playing with AI is another assignment that associates can pick up. From Inside AI:<\/p>\n

\n

The firm runs an internal portal where associates can pick up AI assignments or pitch their own. Projects so far include an AI agent that reviews construction contracts and tests of AI research tools to document where they produce inaccurate results.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Either way, these firms are making an investment. While the AI cult wants you to believe the technology will soon replace 100 percent<\/em> of attorney hours, the reality is probably somewhere between 5 and 20. Using the Ropes model, 100 hours is about 5 percent of a 1,900-hour target, so if the firm believes that well-oiled AI can boost productivity even 6 percent it\u2019s worth it.<\/p>\n

Put aside building and customizing with AI, the proliferation of AI tools requires some experimentation. We\u2019re entering the kitchen sink era<\/a> when it comes to AI tools. Firms are now willing to buy competing products and let teams and individual lawyers sort out their preferences. Beyond competition, products are announcing MCP connections to complementary products every day, creating a network of warp tubing like a Super Mario Bros. level. Figuring out which user interface the lawyer prefers to do all their work in is an experiment in itself.<\/p>\n

For now, these programs represent an exception rather than the rule. But every firm planning to get serious about AI has to come to grips with the fact that this tech isn\u2019t going to optimize itself. Lawyers need time to make it suit their style.<\/p>\n

Ropes & Gray, Akerman Give Lawyers Billable Credit for AI Training<\/a> [Inside AI]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: The Grace To Dabble: Two Biglaw Firms Look To An AI-First Future<\/a>
Agentic AI And The QWERTY Problem<\/a><\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s a chasm between understanding how to ask the free version of ChatGPT to punch up your emails and building a useful AI workflow. A couple weeks ago, I went to a conference with a panel titled \u201cThe Attorney\u2019s Guide to AI\u201d that was supposed to open lawyers\u2019 eyes to building skills and deploying agents, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":164737,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164799","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=164799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164799\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/164737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}