Could ChatGPT replace lawyers? Forum

[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).

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.

I could be wrong, but IIRC, I'm pretty sure hiring almost caught up, but did not hit, pre-07 levels. We're also talking about one of the biggest boon years for the market. Now we're in a correction period and hiring is down a lot. So I don't think we're ever going to return to pre-07 levels, at least not consistently.

[legalpotato]

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

I think that is something only said by bartenders with reddit accounts. With that said, one of those bartenders is one of the most influential legislators in america, so who am I to mock.

But the AI talk is real.

[nealric]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

Lawyers are fundamentally in the business of a rules-based human conflict resolution scheme. A computer can certainly take a lot of the grunt work out of our jobs. AI can make legal research much more efficient and automate more routine legal writing. But it can’t fundamentally change the fact that our system relies on two sides with advocates and a neutral referee to decide that conflict. If we delegated that all to a neutral AI, clients would be hiring technicians to optimize their chances before the AI.


For what it’s worth, I’ve seen AI bots used in the tax space for a few years now. What used to take a low-level account a few weeks of work can sometimes be replaced by a bot that can intelligently query and sort data in the company’s accounting system in a matter of hours. It’s a tool, just like Excel was a tool that replaced manual paper spreadsheets. It didn’t get rid of accountants, it just changed the day to day work of accountants- they’ve put away their slide rules and green visors.

Likewise, I think attorneys probably won’t spend much time doing legal research and nobody will spend much time bluebooking or cite checking. AI can do that. But I don’t see AI being the one to decide which are the primary issues that should go before the court in a case.

[Bosque]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

[DougEvans789]

I’m not convinced lawyers can replace lawyers with any regularity so I’d say no

[legalpotato]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

Half the time juniors don't even follow instructions. I try writing them out in bullet points, in the clearest way possible, and they still manage to miss a few.

[Buglaw]

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.

I could be wrong, but IIRC, I'm pretty sure hiring almost caught up, but did not hit, pre-07 levels. We're also talking about one of the biggest boon years for the market. Now we're in a correction period and hiring is down a lot. So I don't think we're ever going to return to pre-07 levels, at least not consistently.

You are incorrect. The number of lawyers (both associates and partners/counsels) and billable hours exceeded 07 (the previous high water mark) right around the beginning of the pandemic. 2021 blew the roof off the previous record. When I was in law school and after I graduated in 2013, all i heard about was the new “normal” and how technology was going to eat into big law and we would never see those numbers again. All of those prognosticators have been dead wrong for the last ten years. Maybe they are right now, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

As to your other point, the height of boom times is never maintained. Things are always growing and shrinking, but there is no reason to believe things are going to be different this time around then they have been for the last 30 years or so.

[Buglaw]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

Half the time juniors don't even follow instructions. I try writing them out in bullet points, in the clearest way possible, and they still manage to miss a few.

I have also been hearing about machine learning programs replacing people for 10 years, but we still have humans negotiating and filing the simplest of documents/contracts. First these programs need to cut into the very very basic work (NDAs for example). It’s going to be a super long time before they really start chewing into big firm’s bread and butter with any regularity (complicated M&A deals and bet the company litigation).

[legalpotato]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

Half the time juniors don't even follow instructions. I try writing them out in bullet points, in the clearest way possible, and they still manage to miss a few.

I have also been hearing about machine learning programs replacing people for 10 years, but we still have humans negotiating and filing the simplest of documents/contracts. First these programs need to cut into the very very basic work (NDAs for example). It’s going to be a super long time before they really start chewing into big firm’s bread and butter with any regularity (complicated M&A deals and bet the company litigation).

Most of the time when a junior marks up an NDA or purchase agreement, they are doing it based on an algorithm (i.e., checklist or gold standard form they follow and try to match terms up with). I'd bet if someone actually cared to take the time to set up some algorithms and load in 10,000 redlines showing common markups, we have the tech for AI to do this now. Will always need someone senior to review.

[Sangamon]

Real lawyering, at least the type that commands top fees, is not in the mass of documents and filings. It's in the strategy and the counselling. I don't anticipate a board of directors on the cusp of a major liability or transaction wheeling in a computer to ask it for strategic advice. That type of counselling and advice drives the whole ship.

People that think that AI can reshape things are typically missing the human element of all of this. It's a bit like Zuck and Meta. People pushing for these things fundamentally don't grasp how human beings prefer to interact.

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

AI can't really impact true litigation the same way, although it will definitely leave a mark. Nothing can or ever will substitute for live action in court, jury trials, etc. But that leaves a huge amount of work that can be tackled by AI, especially on the commercial side.

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

[legalpotato]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I'm this OP. Not sure why you ignored the now bolded portion. You think it will be a massive slice? Big slice? Medium slice? What?

There are huge chunks of what both transactional and litigation lawyers do that are just not that human-focused analytical. There's a lot of dumb work out there that can and will be done by bots soon enough. Not all, but plenty.

Focusing on litigation for a second, a massive amount of personal injury litigation alone is done by non-lawyers with mere paralegal training. There are plenty of these law firms who only hire lawyers to (a) attract clients and (b) conduct jury trials but only for sizable verdicts (small verdicts are a waste of money to go to trial for, so they will settle or get farmed out to smaller firms). There is plenty of room for efficiency in the way the business of lawyers is conducted.

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

[Antetrust]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

AI has a surprising ability to exercise "judgment." Because computers can process much more data per given time period than humans, they can easily identify patterns that humans are blind to, thus leading to (potentially) better conclusions (i.e., judgments).

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

AI has a surprising ability to exercise "judgment." Because computers can process much more data per given time period than humans, they can easily identify patterns that humans are blind to, thus leading to (potentially) better conclusions (i.e., judgments).

Your clients are not looking for "judgments". They are looking for someone to handhold and cater to their (irrational) idiosyncracies. For example - change this rep in a totally off market and absurd way because of some irrational fear of how the other side may try to sue me. AI program saying "client is an idiot, ignore instruction" isn't going to help. You need an actual human to sit there for 30 minutes stoking the guy's ego and making him feel like a winner before ultimately making some cosmetic modifications to make him feel like he has actual value add.

Basically, "perfect" AI lawyers are only useful to service "perfect" clients. As long as the clients are a confused mess, AI scripts are just going to make things worse, not better.

[legalpotato]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

AI has a surprising ability to exercise "judgment." Because computers can process much more data per given time period than humans, they can easily identify patterns that humans are blind to, thus leading to (potentially) better conclusions (i.e., judgments).

Your clients are not looking for "judgments". They are looking for someone to handhold and cater to their (irrational) idiosyncracies. For example - change this rep in a totally off market and absurd way because of some irrational fear of how the other side may try to sue me. AI program saying "client is an idiot, ignore instruction" isn't going to help. You need an actual human to sit there for 30 minutes stoking the guy's ego and making him feel like a winner before ultimately making some cosmetic modifications to make him feel like he has actual value add.

Basically, "perfect" AI lawyers are only useful to service "perfect" clients. As long as the clients are a confused mess, AI scripts are just going to make things worse, not better.

This is the point I am trying to make. Yes you will need a human for what you describe. But in terms of doing an initial markup, AI would be able to sample from 100k forms and determine easily how to markup other reps to make them more "market". AI does the initial cut for you. Then you go in and add the human touch.

[Anonymous User]

AI can completely eradicate transactional law practice, leaving only a small slice of it for the human-handling portion that clients will prefer.

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

AI has a surprising ability to exercise "judgment." Because computers can process much more data per given time period than humans, they can easily identify patterns that humans are blind to, thus leading to (potentially) better conclusions (i.e., judgments).

Your clients are not looking for "judgments". They are looking for someone to handhold and cater to their (irrational) idiosyncracies. For example - change this rep in a totally off market and absurd way because of some irrational fear of how the other side may try to sue me. AI program saying "client is an idiot, ignore instruction" isn't going to help. You need an actual human to sit there for 30 minutes stoking the guy's ego and making him feel like a winner before ultimately making some cosmetic modifications to make him feel like he has actual value add.

Basically, "perfect" AI lawyers are only useful to service "perfect" clients. As long as the clients are a confused mess, AI scripts are just going to make things worse, not better.

This is the point I am trying to make. Yes you will need a human for what you describe. But in terms of doing an initial markup, AI would be able to sample from 100k forms and determine easily how to markup other reps to make them more "market". AI does the initial cut for you. Then you go in and add the human touch.

How does the up/out hiring model change when you cut out juniors/mid-levels. Seniors will have to stagnate or there will need to be a new pool of people hired into the senior ranks

[legalpotato]

Nobody that has ever worked in a proper transactional practice could plausibly believe this to be true.

I think completely eradicate is an exaggeration. But certainly can replace junior associates. We essentially give juniors algorithms to follow when they mark stuff up, and juniors probably follow the algorithm with 50% success and fail on almost all judgment calls.

A computer would also fail almost all judgment calls (that is where you need a human), but would probably follow the algorithm almost perfectly. And in 1/50th the amount of time and 1/100000th the attitude.

Thia has 0% relationship to how corporate law is actually practiced. There is no "algorithm" given to junior associates. The deal is explained to them, they are provided with a decent precedent, and then are asked to mark up the precedent to reflect the deal. Judgement and common sense are a key part of that process - not something some random script computer program can do.

AI has a surprising ability to exercise "judgment." Because computers can process much more data per given time period than humans, they can easily identify patterns that humans are blind to, thus leading to (potentially) better conclusions (i.e., judgments).

Your clients are not looking for "judgments". They are looking for someone to handhold and cater to their (irrational) idiosyncracies. For example - change this rep in a totally off market and absurd way because of some irrational fear of how the other side may try to sue me. AI program saying "client is an idiot, ignore instruction" isn't going to help. You need an actual human to sit there for 30 minutes stoking the guy's ego and making him feel like a winner before ultimately making some cosmetic modifications to make him feel like he has actual value add.

Basically, "perfect" AI lawyers are only useful to service "perfect" clients. As long as the clients are a confused mess, AI scripts are just going to make things worse, not better.

This is the point I am trying to make. Yes you will need a human for what you describe. But in terms of doing an initial markup, AI would be able to sample from 100k forms and determine easily how to markup other reps to make them more "market". AI does the initial cut for you. Then you go in and add the human touch.

How does the up/out hiring model change when you cut out juniors/mid-levels. Seniors will have to stagnate or there will need to be a new pool of people hired into the senior ranks

Agree - another point I make above. While I think you could cut out juniors, the big question is how do you train up seniors? So maybe that alone helps the industry resist AI.

[Buglaw]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

Half the time juniors don't even follow instructions. I try writing them out in bullet points, in the clearest way possible, and they still manage to miss a few.

I have also been hearing about machine learning programs replacing people for 10 years, but we still have humans negotiating and filing the simplest of documents/contracts. First these programs need to cut into the very very basic work (NDAs for example). It’s going to be a super long time before they really start chewing into big firm’s bread and butter with any regularity (complicated M&A deals and bet the company litigation).

Most of the time when a junior marks up an NDA or purchase agreement, they are doing it based on an algorithm (i.e., checklist or gold standard form they follow and try to match terms up with). I'd bet if someone actually cared to take the time to set up some algorithms and load in 10,000 redlines showing common markups, we have the tech for AI to do this now. Will always need someone senior to review.

Quoted incorrectly

[nealric]

At the end of the day, all computers can do is follow instructions. The instructions they can follow have become increasingly complex and abstract. But a human has to decide what it is they want the computer to do.

That used to be true. That is increasingly not as true, other than in a asimovian, philosophical sense. There is a vast difference between a computer following a specific program written by a human, and a computer using machine learning to figure out on its own how to accomplish a plain language stated goal.

And really, how is that all that different than you? As a lawyer, a client comes to you and gives you a goal. You research past similar issues and formulate a plan for how to accomplish that goal based on that research with small variations to fit your facts, then execute on the plan. That’s the same thing AI does, just with a vastly greater capacity to take in information and a more limited (for now) capability to apply it.

To be clear, not saying there is an existing tool that can replace us. Or that we would t have a role still if there is. But that statement in particular I wanted to flag as not really in keeping with where AI is on the edge, and where it looks like it’s going, in my opinion.

It's still a set of instructions, just a lot more abstract. You might tell a computer: file a complaint for breach of contract. Before, you would have had to specifically query legal research terms or have a template already there for the computer to fill out. Today, I can imagine an AI today could be trained to do appropriately legal research, write up the complaint autonomously, and appropriately file it after a lawyer e-signs.

But the human still needs to make a political decision, which isn't going to be in the programming unless someone tells provides that programming. For example, the human still has to decide (for example): do we need to maintain a relationship with this vendor? Is the risk of counterclaims acceptable to us? What's our budget for this dispute? I don't see a day anytime soon where humans simply delegate those decisions. Not because the machine theoretically can't, but because that's not what humans are going to want.