I recently finished reading Ethan Mollick‘s excellent book on artificial intelligence, entitled Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. He does a great job of explaining what it is, how it works, how it best can be used, and where it may be headed.
Having thought a lot about AI’s potential impact on law, three insights in the book stood out. I will cover the first of these insights, the impact on legal skills in this post. In my next post, I’ll explore the other two insights: the need and development of experts and the fact that AI is the worst today that it will ever be.
The Impact on Skills
The first point that resonated with me is that artificial intelligence tools can take those with poor skills in certain areas and significantly elevate their output. For example, Mollick cited a study that demonstrated that the performance of law students at the bottom of their class got closer to that of the top students with the use of AI.
Interestingly, the study also found that those with higher skill sets found much less improvement in their outputs when using artificial intelligence. The study authors noted that both findings have implications for the practice, “This suggests AI may have an equalizing effect on the legal profession, mitigating inequalities between elite and nonelite lawyers.”
In essence, AI levels the playing field when it comes to abilities and possible expertise. Anecdotally, I’ve heard many really good lawyers recently observe that heretofore opposing mediocre lawyers have gotten a whole lot better.
The Impact on Competition
If Mollick and the study authors are right, what does equalizing mean for legal? The legal market is already highly competitive, at least for the more profitable lines of business. There are already too many lawyers chasing this business. The most successful lawyers, however, are still those with the greatest skill and ability. Their level of practice is much higher, and they can command higher rates. They write better, they are more articulate, and they are more creative than many other lawyers. Much of legal marketing is based on this idea.
With the advent of AI, however, this gap in skill sets and expertise could very well narrow. The end result will be increased competition with the former difference in skills becoming less relevant. This competition will give clients a greater range of options and correspondingly lower the price of services. A client could perhaps get very much the same result from using a lower priced lawyer. It could create a proverbial race to the bottom.
And the quality of the services provided to clients, across the board, could increase. In the future it may only be in the very narrow range of cases–the bet the company case–where a higher skill set will commanded and justify a higher rate.
This would have profound implications for a profession which is largely built on the billable hour and leverage. It may require that lawyers begin to differentiate themselves in different ways. To stand out, a lawyer will need to perhaps demonstrate different skills..
It remains to be seen what new skills will differentiate lawyers from one another, although many pundits predict that such things as empathy and human relations may become important. Lawyers will need to better understand their clients. And the value for services may need to shift from the billable hour to the value of the service to the client, as I have discussed before.
Of course, another possibility is that many lawyers will no longer have the critical thinking processes necessary to solve complex legal and people problems. Overreliance on AI tools could create a bland, impersonal lawyer. Those who use AI in correct ways and do not over rely upon it may still have the edge.
It’s Still a People Business
This competitive reality makes human skills even more critical. Lawyers would also be wise to remember that bottom-line lawyering is about communication and people skills. While AI may improve communication, it will not necessarily improve people skills. Lawyers still need to understand how to effectively communicate with a person with all their warts, beliefs, and bias. Lawyers will still need to apply what AI tells them to the precise situation and clients at hand. AI will not replace the need for critical thinking.
I once had a client who didn’t seem to grasp the risks of a particular case. When I explained this to my mentor, he told me that contractors live with the risk of financial ruin on almost every big project. The lawsuit risk was no different. That reframing completely changed how I approached the client conversation. No amount of AI prompting could have provided that kind of contextual insight.
This kind of understanding and empathy will become more important to our clients than ever in the new age of AI.
Don’t Forget the Clients
We also must assume that clients will have greater expertise and will rely more on AI to understand their problems even before they talk with a lawyer. This means that the skill set a lawyer must bring to the table with a client will not necessarily be the beginning expertise that can be found in the output of an AI prompt. It means applying critical thinking skills and the human ability to assess how the information obtained from AI might apply to a given problem and a given client.
For example, a client might have already researched contract law with an AI tool when they walk in your office. But they still need someone who can assess whether that general advice applies to their specific situation, their relationships, and their risk tolerance.
It is in these areas where lawyers of the future may be able to differentiate themselves.
What Does this Mean?
Lawyers and law firms need to begin thinking and planning for how the coming skill equalization will impact competition and potentially profitability. They need to consider how the value of what they provide to their clients will be greater than their competition. They need to start thinking about what skill will set them apart in the new AI driven world.
We may indeed soon be at an inflection point. The question is no longer whether this point is coming, it’s whether lawyers will adapt their value proposition before their competitors do.
Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.
The post Insights On AI And Its Impact On Legal, Part One appeared first on Above the Law.