Legal intuition, professional integrity, and personal trustworthiness are the quintessentially human qualities that will enable lawyers to stay relevant and resolute in a post-AI world.
Even forgetting the “legal” of it all — I think this is spot on in terms of where we’re going post-AI.
The trouble of intuition though is that it does take practice to build up, and actually comes from a place of trusting *yourself.* So we need to (1) make sure future generations don’t have their ability to hone that intuition gobbled up by software (or find new models to train that still involve trying and failing), and (2) really cultivate the advancement of lawyers personal identity that creates the environment for intuition to thrive.
Very interesting. I have been thinking of trustworthiness in the context of communication and the psychology of connection. That opens up a wealth of research and resources. For instance, you can look at marketing principles to understand the psychological processes that controls whether we trust or not.
I can’t really compare Australia and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, it’s relatively affordable for people without money to hire a good lawyer. In my long experience as a lawyer, I’ve seen that people who are uneducated, poor, and angry often get trapped in the system. A good, human lawyer can help them navigate the legal bureaucracy. AI cannot. AI only provides a legal answer on a screen. They struggle to understand that, don’t have a computer, are illiterate, or don’t know the language. The legal AI of the future will be for the happy few. The unhappy many will still need a lawyer.
Richard Susskind was in Amsterdam and told us that AI will replace many lawyers, society doesn't need lawyers, humans want cheap conflict resolution. What he overlooks is that many low income low class citizens frequently get into legal trouble: not paying their bills, emotional quarreling, problems with the landlord or getting fired. They need lawyers who help them to negotiate and to represent them.
Which is where ai driven legal support promises to democratise access to legal services that have long been out of reach except for the wealthy or the few who get access to legal aid (should that be available in your jurisdiction). In Australia there’s evidence of self representing litigants showing up with ai assisted filings. Enough for some courts to issue ai use guidance.
Thank you for this thoughtful post. While I agree with most of what you say, I find myself more jaded about the future. Yes, lawyers should and must focus on the humanity inherent in what we do. But I’m jaded because, in contemporary society, time and again we pick the cheaper, speedier, alternative over the more complex handling of issues. When you add the costs savings, which will be considerable, it is hard to imagine a world where many of the legal tasks won’t be done by technology.
The profession needs to find a way to develop the skills of people becoming lawyers. Increasingly, clients refuse to pay for young lawyers to develop necessary skills, and firms are unwilling to eat the cost of lawyer development. In such a climate, it will be easy to convert to AI solutions as people put less value in the development of human capital.
Even forgetting the “legal” of it all — I think this is spot on in terms of where we’re going post-AI.
The trouble of intuition though is that it does take practice to build up, and actually comes from a place of trusting *yourself.* So we need to (1) make sure future generations don’t have their ability to hone that intuition gobbled up by software (or find new models to train that still involve trying and failing), and (2) really cultivate the advancement of lawyers personal identity that creates the environment for intuition to thrive.
Excellent points, Amanda -- agreed on both counts!
Very interesting. I have been thinking of trustworthiness in the context of communication and the psychology of connection. That opens up a wealth of research and resources. For instance, you can look at marketing principles to understand the psychological processes that controls whether we trust or not.
I can’t really compare Australia and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, it’s relatively affordable for people without money to hire a good lawyer. In my long experience as a lawyer, I’ve seen that people who are uneducated, poor, and angry often get trapped in the system. A good, human lawyer can help them navigate the legal bureaucracy. AI cannot. AI only provides a legal answer on a screen. They struggle to understand that, don’t have a computer, are illiterate, or don’t know the language. The legal AI of the future will be for the happy few. The unhappy many will still need a lawyer.
Richard Susskind was in Amsterdam and told us that AI will replace many lawyers, society doesn't need lawyers, humans want cheap conflict resolution. What he overlooks is that many low income low class citizens frequently get into legal trouble: not paying their bills, emotional quarreling, problems with the landlord or getting fired. They need lawyers who help them to negotiate and to represent them.
Which is where ai driven legal support promises to democratise access to legal services that have long been out of reach except for the wealthy or the few who get access to legal aid (should that be available in your jurisdiction). In Australia there’s evidence of self representing litigants showing up with ai assisted filings. Enough for some courts to issue ai use guidance.
Thank you for this thoughtful post. While I agree with most of what you say, I find myself more jaded about the future. Yes, lawyers should and must focus on the humanity inherent in what we do. But I’m jaded because, in contemporary society, time and again we pick the cheaper, speedier, alternative over the more complex handling of issues. When you add the costs savings, which will be considerable, it is hard to imagine a world where many of the legal tasks won’t be done by technology.
The profession needs to find a way to develop the skills of people becoming lawyers. Increasingly, clients refuse to pay for young lawyers to develop necessary skills, and firms are unwilling to eat the cost of lawyer development. In such a climate, it will be easy to convert to AI solutions as people put less value in the development of human capital.