Top Law Schools

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... omate_mund

just another friendly reminder to learn tech. The question is not if biglaw will die but when. The need to overleversged ratio of associates to partners will be done soon.

No need to worry. Trump will bring those jobs back.

People have been saying this for years... decades?

It will remain a viable entry level job to make some money and learn some skills. Anyone planning to make a career out of it, obviously, needs to get their head checked.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:People have been saying this for years... decades?

It will remain a viable entry level job to make some money and learn some skills. Anyone planning to make a career out of it, obviously, needs to get their head checked.

what skills?

The United States is also going to adopt the metric system.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/could-th ... ic-system/

Disagree with viable entry level job. That's exactly who this tech is targeting. 5 years from now could easily see a huge reduction of the numbers of entry level biglaw jobs from today.

MrT wrote:The United States is also going to adopt the metric system.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/could-th ... ic-system/

If the point of this is that's is speculative, the whole point of my post is it's no longer speculative. Seyfarth Shaw is regarded as the most innovative big law firm in the industry. Also coincidentally seyfarth fired a large chunk of first year class in 2016.

JohannDeMann wrote:

MrT wrote:The United States is also going to adopt the metric system.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/could-th ... ic-system/

If the point of this is that's is speculative, the whole point of my post is it's no longer speculative. Seyfarth Shaw is regarded as the most innovative big law firm in the industry. Also coincidentally seyfarth fired a large chunk of first year class in 2016.

lmao

(waits for JAW DROPPING FT link)

JohannDeMann wrote:Disagree with viable entry level job. That's exactly who this tech is targeting. 5 years from now could easily see a huge reduction of the numbers of entry level biglaw jobs from today.

The one example cited in the report is like, processing engagement letters. That is a far cry from automating even the most tedious junior associate work.

Biglaw should die but won't bc the people who are willing to pay biglaw fees are already paying to have nerds boil the ocean unnecessarily.

I am certain you could automate the entirety of legal research and do much of the same for doc review and privilege review.

We're just too far from trusting that stuff entirely. So, instead of being efficient, we spend $400/hr+ to have some nerd confirm what we already know.

Definitely scary for folks who are maybe just thinking about law school now, but not scary for anyone in law school right now.

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:People have been saying this for years... decades?

It will remain a viable entry level job to make some money and learn some skills. Anyone planning to make a career out of it, obviously, needs to get their head checked.

what skills?

I mean that's cute and biglaw sucks and all but you can't do something for 3 years without learning how to do it.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:People have been saying this for years... decades?

It will remain a viable entry level job to make some money and learn some skills. Anyone planning to make a career out of it, obviously, needs to get their head checked.

what skills?

I mean that's cute and biglaw sucks and all but you can't do something for 3 years without learning how to do it.

problem is that it's definitely not a skillset that could be transferred or even slightly valued at any place outside biglaw/legal inhouse that would pay anywhere close to biglaw salary

smaug wrote:Biglaw should die but won't bc the people who are willing to pay biglaw fees are already paying to have nerds boil the ocean unnecessarily.

I am certain you could automate the entirety of legal research and do much of the same for doc review and privilege review.

We're just too far from trusting that stuff entirely. So, instead of being efficient, we spend $400/hr+ to have some nerd confirm what we already know.

Definitely scary for folks who are maybe just thinking about law school now, but not scary for anyone in law school right now.

Exactly this.

I'm still fighting with partners and clients to use 6 year old predictive coding tech. We're a solid decade from ~major disruption~ in other areas

Growth in BigLaw is over though barring some radical change. AmLaw 200 net revenue has pretty much flatlined.

.

This is great news for everyone that isn't a lawyer. Anything that drives the cost of legal services down is a win for the economy.

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:People have been saying this for years... decades?

It will remain a viable entry level job to make some money and learn some skills. Anyone planning to make a career out of it, obviously, needs to get their head checked.

what skills?

I mean that's cute and biglaw sucks and all but you can't do something for 3 years without learning how to do it.

problem is that it's definitely not a skillset that could be transferred or even slightly valued at any place outside biglaw/legal inhouse that would pay anywhere close to biglaw salary

Probably true in transactional, not true in litigation.

No way is ai or machine learning good enough to replace actual legal work.

Legal work will be some of the last work to disappear.

Desert Fox wrote:No way is ai or machine learning good enough to replace actual legal work.

Legal work will be some of the last work to disappear.

If you're basing this on the complexity of legal work, then lol

If you're basing this on the intractability of lawyers, clients, and courts/regulators to adapt, then yes

If clients are still stupid enough to pay a first year to do sig pages then biglaw will never die.

star fox wrote:This is great news for everyone that isn't a lawyer. Anything that drives the cost of legal services down is a win for the economy.

Pretty sure legal costs will stay high because it's a necessary good, it's just there will be fewer lawyers.

I also don't see how litigation can be automated (without sci-fi AI) because it's all based on subjective arguments anyway. You could probably automate settlement negotiation (wouldn't be surprised if that's already done), but for cases where the law isn't clear or it requires some shit like "what would an individual having ordinary skill in the art find obvious" you'd still need lawyers.

I mean, if you can automate legal brief writing and reasoning, we've reached the point where robots are our overlords.

Desert Fox wrote:No way is ai or machine learning good enough to replace actual legal work.

Legal work will be some of the last work to disappear.

If I believe anything on this forum it's what DF says. (I'm serious--I love your advice) I think some corporate work can be automated much more quickly than lit stuff though.

LITCOIN COULD NEVER GO DOWN

Maybe our union can sue these robots for unauthorized practice of law.