Could ChatGPT replace lawyers? Forum

[El Greco]

The title may be too exaggerated, but I've heard numerous times that law is the most IT-proof career because reasoning, arguing, and writing are things that AI could never do better than humans. Well, ChatGPT is here and people use it to get A+ grades on essays (also, it can even code). So how it will affect the legal world?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

[nixy]

People who are claiming that ChatGPT can generate an A+ essay are fooling themselves. I get that it can produce something that is, on its face, coherent, but that’s not an A+.

Can’t see it replacing lawyers except in maybe the most rote, routine circumstances.

[Anonymous User]

something like this, if it's good, would mostly be used by lawyers, not replace them. sort of an improved version of generating precedents etc

[Anonymous User]

I've been thinking about its legal implications and most likely it could be used to replace rote work, but not high level legal work. Like it could probably generate questions to ask as part of an internal investigation, pull up precedents more easily, etc. What it's not going to be able to easily do is see how to deploy existing precedents in novel ways, or work around unhelpful caselaw.

As for corporate work, kind of the same thing--it's not going to be able to easily identify exogenous risk factors that need to be dealt with in the contract, it's not going to be able to determine if an earn-out or a licensing scheme makes sense for the client, it's not going to be able to think strategically about the client's position. It will, however, be able to modify contracts according to precise instructions. Maybe think of it as a a first-year associate killer more than anything else?

I've also fed it a few questions from more complex legal fields (tax, federal indian law, etc) and it's been very hit-or-miss on how accurate it is, but I'll concede that's likely mostly a technical problem.

Now, one place I could see it being used is to replace lawyers at the very bottom of the pyramid--small claims court, traffic court, etc. You don't need a high level of legal know-how there and really it would be a matter of each side telling their story to chatGPT, chatGPT asking follow-up questions, and then chatGPT reporting back to the judge--more of an inquisitorial system, but substantially more efficient.

[legalpotato]

Won't replace altogether, but could reduce the number of lawyers needed.

Imagine you need to prepare a purchase agmt. Instead of telling a junior assoc to update a form for the current transaction based on LOI and send to you to review, you tell the AI (using plain language, not coding), it does first crack (including things like changing party names, etc) and send to you to review in 3 minutes. It is better than what lateral 3rd year from bumfuk & associates could do, and he/she takes 24 hours to do it.

Honestly, these AI bots could take a first crack at all docs. Think you will always need a senior lawyer to review it.

The question then becomes, how to train senior lawyers when junior lawyers are all replaced by AI?

[Baron7]

No.

[Anonymous User]

I buy that chat GPT could produce high B, low B+ essays in intro-level college courses (but a human has to go through and create citiations) based on what I am seeing. Can't imagine how it could produce A+ essays though based on what I have seen. Not saying that won't be possible in the future, but to say we're at the point where AI can produce A+ essays seems like an over-exageration.

[Anonymous User]

I buy that chat GPT could produce high B, low B+ essays in intro-level college courses (but a human has to go through and create citiations) based on what I am seeing. Can't imagine how it could produce A+ essays though based on what I have seen. Not saying that won't be possible in the future, but to say we're at the point where AI can produce A+ essays seems like an over-exageration.

Citation should be easy. Keeping up with whatever new insanity in the bluebook is the perfect task for AI.

Edit: also remember, we shouldn’t be looking at if ChatGPT as it’s capable today can replace lawyers. We need to think 2, 3, 5 years down the road. This space is changing massively and quickly.

Personally I don’t think it will replace lawyers entirely; it’ll mean we do far less dumb menial tasks and there will be a need for fewer lawyers, but the skills those will need will be far more high-level. If I had to make any wild, off-the-cuff predictions, it would be that in 10 years biglaw firms will hire half as many associates and pay them double (and probably bill them out at quadruple).

This has the potential for massively multiplying individual knowledge-worker productivity. Brace for impact everyone.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone is inclined to say chatGPT won't replace them, this is just like r/cscareerquestions at this point. Lawyers at biglaw never recovered to pre-08 levels and there's a reason why.

[Anonymizer]

On a long enough time horizon it could replace certain roles (like the ones from stub to partner)…. Mass adoption from biglaw seems less likely than adoption by in-house teams and midlaw who are already leanly staffed. Eventually, we’ll probably end up with a more fragmented industry as disruptive tech becomes useful, and as cost-conscious clients seek alternatives. But it lacks the glorious insurance-like quality that a human lawyer brings to the table.

[Anonymous User]

The only skill that lawyers have that is literally IT-proof is cross examination, due to its inherent nature. The witness testifying is always a human being, with human behaviors, human tendencies to lie and equivocate, and human skills at manipulating judges and juries. Solely another human can demonstrate through verbal skills accompanied by admissible evidence that the witness is being untruthful.

Everything else lawyers do is subject to automation. Maybe not ChatGPT yet, but some day. Ignore opportunities to become a trial lawyer at your own risk.

[Anonymous User]

The only skill that lawyers have that is literally IT-proof is cross examination, due to its inherent nature. The witness testifying is always a human being, with human behaviors, human tendencies to lie and equivocate, and human skills at manipulating judges and juries. Solely another human can demonstrate through verbal skills accompanied by admissible evidence that the witness is being untruthful.

Everything else lawyers do is subject to automation. Maybe not ChatGPT yet, but some day. Ignore opportunities to become a trial lawyer at your own risk.

I simply don't think that's true. There's lots of places where human behaviors come into play--see, e.g., negotiations. If you're dealing with a CEO whose business is in the middle of going belly up and you're trying to squeeze whatever value you can out of the company, you better know exactly how much leverage you have and how to apply it.

More importantly, I don't think people will accept pure-AI lawyers. Look at how people dislike and get frustrated with other automated products and don't trust them completely. Most products like that we've seen are simple and not super error prone. A far more complex AI which can't truly explain its decision making? Not going to be trusted.

[Anonymous User]

I buy that chat GPT could produce high B, low B+ essays in intro-level college courses (but a human has to go through and create citiations) based on what I am seeing. Can't imagine how it could produce A+ essays though based on what I have seen. Not saying that won't be possible in the future, but to say we're at the point where AI can produce A+ essays seems like an over-exageration.

Citation should be easy. Keeping up with whatever new insanity in the bluebook is the perfect task for AI.

Edit: also remember, we shouldn’t be looking at if ChatGPT as it’s capable today can replace lawyers. We need to think 2, 3, 5 years down the road. This space is changing massively and quickly.

Personally I don’t think it will replace lawyers entirely; it’ll mean we do far less dumb menial tasks and there will be a need for fewer lawyers, but the skills those will need will be far more high-level. If I had to make any wild, off-the-cuff predictions, it would be that in 10 years biglaw firms will hire half as many associates and pay them double (and probably bill them out at quadruple).

This has the potential for massively multiplying individual knowledge-worker productivity. Brace for impact everyone.

I'm anon you're responding to. I agree with everything you said. I was just quibbling with the idea that chat gpt is producing A+ essays right now, which I think it is definitely not.

Also by "citation" I didn't mean bluebook citation I meant like quoting your sources. For instance if you ask it to right an essay comparing and contrasting Karl Marx and Adam Smith (probably something an undergraduate would write an essay on), it won't engage with the text or cite any pages in specific.

[Anonymous User]

The only skill that lawyers have that is literally IT-proof is cross examination, due to its inherent nature. The witness testifying is always a human being, with human behaviors, human tendencies to lie and equivocate, and human skills at manipulating judges and juries. Solely another human can demonstrate through verbal skills accompanied by admissible evidence that the witness is being untruthful.

Everything else lawyers do is subject to automation. Maybe not ChatGPT yet, but some day. Ignore opportunities to become a trial lawyer at your own risk.

I simply don't think that's true. There's lots of places where human behaviors come into play--see, e.g., negotiations. If you're dealing with a CEO whose business is in the middle of going belly up and you're trying to squeeze whatever value you can out of the company, you better know exactly how much leverage you have and how to apply it.

More importantly, I don't think people will accept pure-AI lawyers. Look at how people dislike and get frustrated with other automated products and don't trust them completely. Most products like that we've seen are simple and not super error prone. A far more complex AI which can't truly explain its decision making? Not going to be trusted.

"People" might not accept pure-AI lawyers but those people are consumers who need lawyers for criminal defense work or personal injury cases. Again, it's still trial-related where the actual human touch is necessary. I would still argue that a robot could handle a personal injury claim a lot better than the shoddy work I've seen from some lawyers but I digress.

[legalpotato]

The only skill that lawyers have that is literally IT-proof is cross examination, due to its inherent nature. The witness testifying is always a human being, with human behaviors, human tendencies to lie and equivocate, and human skills at manipulating judges and juries. Solely another human can demonstrate through verbal skills accompanied by admissible evidence that the witness is being untruthful.

Everything else lawyers do is subject to automation. Maybe not ChatGPT yet, but some day. Ignore opportunities to become a trial lawyer at your own risk.

I simply don't think that's true. There's lots of places where human behaviors come into play--see, e.g., negotiations. If you're dealing with a CEO whose business is in the middle of going belly up and you're trying to squeeze whatever value you can out of the company, you better know exactly how much leverage you have and how to apply it.

More importantly, I don't think people will accept pure-AI lawyers. Look at how people dislike and get frustrated with other automated products and don't trust them completely. Most products like that we've seen are simple and not super error prone. A far more complex AI which can't truly explain its decision making? Not going to be trusted.

"People" might not accept pure-AI lawyers but those people are consumers who need lawyers for criminal defense work or personal injury cases. Again, it's still trial-related where the actual human touch is necessary. I would still argue that a robot could handle a personal injury claim a lot better than the shoddy work I've seen from some lawyers but I digress.

On the transactional side, if they could optimize ChatGPT for corporate work, I am confident it would spit out better products than the class of 2020 and after, and with less attitude.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how a bot could do anything but the most basic legal research. Anything remotely sophisticated requires knowing the facts of your case and the facts of the cited case and understanding how and where they intersect. And even with the most basic legal research you pick the case to cite your most basic propositions about say the 4th Amendment with some care to make sure you're not leading your opponent to a case that is generally helpful to them or where the later discussion of the case otherwise undermines other arguments you want to make.

[Anonymous User]

One thing to consider in this thread is that even if chat GPT could do our jobs we have a whole cartel in the form of the BAR association and federal and state judges that can construct fake rules on why you can't use AI. Can imagine a judge holding that using AI and not checking it is malpractice and can imagine the BAR putting restrictions on the use of AI to churn out stuff. Of course, AI can still be used to trim the amount of associates necessary, but I doubt that even if AI becomes able to take over the role of lawyers that would actually happen.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Everyone is inclined to say chatGPT won't replace them, this is just like r/cscareerquestions at this point. Lawyers at biglaw never recovered to pre-08 levels and there's a reason why.

This is not true; total Biglaw employment passed 2007 sometime in the last 18 months by any metric. Revenue of course reached new highs, and of course no hard data but associates probably billed more on average last year than they ever did.

Tech’s not gonna replace associates before everyone ITT has gray hair, mostly because the pace of automation has been slower than the growth in demand for legal services. Sure, juniors don’t spend a year just doing diligence now, and redlines take ten seconds instead of an hour, but that just freed those people up to do other shit.

[Anonymous User]

The title may be too exaggerated, but I've heard numerous times that law is the most IT-proof career because reasoning, arguing, and writing are things that AI could never do better than humans. Well, ChatGPT is here and people use it to get A+ grades on essays (also, it can even code). So how it will affect the legal world?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Honestly, its like the dumbest question ever. The underlying premise is that clients would be better off with fancy computer programs than with humans. But like 90% of the job is dealing with personality defects of clients, ridiculous obsessions about irrelevant things, confused and irrational prior decisions that govern future decisions, and all kinds of other craziness. The clients aren't looking for machines to do "perfect" work for them, they are looking for humans to accomodate all of their irrational and whacky edicts and desires. Don't see AI solving that problem anytime soon. Maybe if AI replaces all of the clients, then it could replace the lawyers too.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone is inclined to say chatGPT won't replace them, this is just like r/cscareerquestions at this point. Lawyers at biglaw never recovered to pre-08 levels and there's a reason why.

This is not true; total Biglaw employment passed 2007 sometime in the last 18 months by any metric. Revenue of course reached new highs, and of course no hard data but associates probably billed more on average last year than they ever did.

Tech’s not gonna replace associates before everyone ITT has gray hair, mostly because the pace of automation has been slower than the growth in demand for legal services. Sure, juniors don’t spend a year just doing diligence now, and redlines take ten seconds instead of an hour, but that just freed those people up to do other shit.

Quoted anon here. I meant the number of lawyers* never recovered. Which has to do with the increasing level of automation and which also ties to the metrics you're mentioning (lower headcount -> higher revenue).

[axiomaticapiary]

The title may be too exaggerated, but I've heard numerous times that law is the most IT-proof career because reasoning, arguing, and writing are things that AI could never do better than humans. Well, ChatGPT is here and people use it to get A+ grades on essays (also, it can even code). So how it will affect the legal world?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Honestly, its like the dumbest question ever. The underlying premise is that clients would be better off with fancy computer programs than with humans. But like 90% of the job is dealing with personality defects of clients, ridiculous obsessions about irrelevant things, confused and irrational prior decisions that govern future decisions, and all kinds of other craziness. The clients aren't looking for machines to do "perfect" work for them, they are looking for humans to accomodate all of their irrational and whacky edicts and desires. Don't see AI solving that problem anytime soon. Maybe if AI replaces all of the clients, then it could replace the lawyers too.

Good take — one job I believe cannot be automated is a therapist (even if a sophisticated AI could generate exactly the same responses, people would still choose a human) and I believe some similar logic applies to lawyers

[jsnow212]

The title may be too exaggerated, but I've heard numerous times that law is the most IT-proof career because reasoning, arguing, and writing are things that AI could never do better than humans. Well, ChatGPT is here and people use it to get A+ grades on essays (also, it can even code). So how it will affect the legal world?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Honestly, its like the dumbest question ever. The underlying premise is that clients would be better off with fancy computer programs than with humans. But like 90% of the job is dealing with personality defects of clients, ridiculous obsessions about irrelevant things, confused and irrational prior decisions that govern future decisions, and all kinds of other craziness. The clients aren't looking for machines to do "perfect" work for them, they are looking for humans to accomodate all of their irrational and whacky edicts and desires. Don't see AI solving that problem anytime soon. Maybe if AI replaces all of the clients, then it could replace the lawyers too.

Good take — one job I believe cannot be automated is a therapist (even if a sophisticated AI could generate exactly the same responses, people would still choose a human) and I believe some similar logic applies to lawyers

Agree with the take as well.

Half my job is dealing with the idiosyncrasies of other humans. ChatGPT isn't going to cut it when a client wants to have a multi-email back and forth and an hour-long phone call to discuss basic provisions instead of just accepting what I've drafted.

[Bosque]

Everyone was sure artists would be the last to be automated, but look at what midjourney (and other AI software) can already do. I’m not saying AI could replace us today, but you are a fool if you think it’s impossible.

That said, the “risk” such as it is to our profession is not straight replacement as I see it. It’s that AI/automation is going to dramatically change how society is organized writ large. Civil Law is, at its heart, about dispute resolution and mitigation. These disputes arise because of scarce resource allocation-two groups of people want the same thing and they cannot both have it. Big Law Firms exist now because society evolved to where it made sense for these people to organize as large corporations, rather than individuals or smaller firms. So they fight, or they merge, or they argue for rules that favor them, ect. And because of the size of the stakes, they are willing to pay enough that it makes sense for big law firms to exist to service these needs.

AI and automation is probably not going to lead to a post scarcity society where there are no conflicts because there is nothing to fight about. But it is going to change what the thing is we are fighting about, in the same way the Industrial Revolution did (e.g. greatly increasing available markets and benefits of centralization, and so incentivizing the rise of corporations who pay our bills) and the beginning of the Information Age did (e.g., creating new markets that were almost infinitely scaleable, leading to the rise of intellectual property and the shift to the mass service economy).

How will AI change us? Not sure, but it occupies a lot of my thoughts. It could be that it just shifts priorities for employment to new industries where for some reason it truly cannot replace us or it makes less economic sense, and those people’s problems become the major focus of the existing legal industry, changing our industry only in focus. It could be that it decentralizes the means of production/creation so much that corporations no longer enjoy the same benefits of scale, and large conglomerates colapse under their own weight for smaller, specialized firms that don’t want to or need to pay for huge expensive law firms, leading to the break up of large firms. It could be that corporations are entrenched now, and existing protections let them centralize power and capital even more where they no longer need to redistribute to a labor force they rely on to produce things, leading to even larger but fewer firms, killing off mid law. Or (most likely) it could be something we cannot anticipate.

Point being, AI likely won’t replace all of us directly. But it will likely change fundamentally what people need us for, in ways we cannot yet anticipate. That’s going to be a bigger change than just the number of attorneys we need to write interrogatory responses.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Everyone is inclined to say chatGPT won't replace them, this is just like r/cscareerquestions at this point. Lawyers at biglaw never recovered to pre-08 levels and there's a reason why.

This is not true; total Biglaw employment passed 2007 sometime in the last 18 months by any metric. Revenue of course reached new highs, and of course no hard data but associates probably billed more on average last year than they ever did.

Tech’s not gonna replace associates before everyone ITT has gray hair, mostly because the pace of automation has been slower than the growth in demand for legal services. Sure, juniors don’t spend a year just doing diligence now, and redlines take ten seconds instead of an hour, but that just freed those people up to do other shit.

Quoted anon here. I meant the number of lawyers* never recovered. Which has to do with the increasing level of automation and which also ties to the metrics you're mentioning (lower headcount -> higher revenue).

Okay but again, the number of lawyers did indeed surpass 2007, and given how massive the summer 2022 classes were, we probably aren’t reaching the peak until the fall.

[jdkale]

I thought the blockchain was first going to replace all contracts?