The more you study how Generative AI works, the more parallels emerge with how lawyers think — and that has implications. With Gen AI getting better every day, we need to get our act together, fast.
Really appreciated this, Jordan. Your point about AI not being the problem, but how we use it, really resonates.
I’ve been thinking about how AI probably won’t replace lawyers, but it might reveal which ones weren’t really practicing sound judgment to begin with. The lawyers who stand out will be the ones who use AI to sharpen their thinking, recognize patterns, and communicate more clearly—while still bringing the human element. Things like discernment, timing, emotional awareness, and the ability to navigate nuance still matter a lot.
In that sense, AI isn’t a shortcut. It’s more like a spotlight that shows where real judgment is happening.
Such a good piece, Jordan: "It ain’t nothin’ till I call it!" Determinism be damned! Legal advice — whether litigation, transactional, regulatory, or advisory — is a quantum particle: It's good and it's bad (at the same time)! It's good if it wins (or gets the deal done, or gets you out of regulatory scrutiny), and it's bad if it fails. Sometimes you don't know for years (e.g., did the contract avoid litigation?), and sometimes you never know (e.g., "Was my final letter to the regulator enough to dissuade them?).
That's why efforts to seek a "legal benchmark" — a Platonic ideal — will fail. Because the "best" brief is the one that *wins* — for *this* judge on *these* facts. And the "best" contract is the one that gets *this* deal done — with *these* parties in *this* industry with *this* subject matter. Viva probabilism!
Really appreciated this, Jordan. Your point about AI not being the problem, but how we use it, really resonates.
I’ve been thinking about how AI probably won’t replace lawyers, but it might reveal which ones weren’t really practicing sound judgment to begin with. The lawyers who stand out will be the ones who use AI to sharpen their thinking, recognize patterns, and communicate more clearly—while still bringing the human element. Things like discernment, timing, emotional awareness, and the ability to navigate nuance still matter a lot.
In that sense, AI isn’t a shortcut. It’s more like a spotlight that shows where real judgment is happening.
Jordan this a nicely balanced perspective as I read it. Thank you. George
Such a good piece, Jordan: "It ain’t nothin’ till I call it!" Determinism be damned! Legal advice — whether litigation, transactional, regulatory, or advisory — is a quantum particle: It's good and it's bad (at the same time)! It's good if it wins (or gets the deal done, or gets you out of regulatory scrutiny), and it's bad if it fails. Sometimes you don't know for years (e.g., did the contract avoid litigation?), and sometimes you never know (e.g., "Was my final letter to the regulator enough to dissuade them?).
That's why efforts to seek a "legal benchmark" — a Platonic ideal — will fail. Because the "best" brief is the one that *wins* — for *this* judge on *these* facts. And the "best" contract is the one that gets *this* deal done — with *these* parties in *this* industry with *this* subject matter. Viva probabilism!