Form: Reply

–“Q: Will AI cause job losses for attorney?””

A lot of legal work involves investigation, interviews, and depositions. The important part is arguing findings in court. That scope of work going to stay. Bullshit and lie detection is not going to be automated. Negotiation isn’t going to be, even if negotiating positions might be automatically generated.

On the other hand, a lot of work is research, creating a strategy, communicating both above and below board, and filing out nonsense forms, and filing nonsense procedural paperwork, to grease the gears of the court system. That nonsense is going to collapse. And with it junior jobs in the field. So I see ‘compression’ in the field just like I see in all of them.

MORE:

The purpose of an attorney, who is technically an ‘officer of the court’, and holds liability in his role, is not something easily replaced. (For example, as an activist firm, we can assist you and a lawyer with strategy but we cannot stand for you in court.) However the number of billable hours per client will collapse, and drive up the number of clients necessary.

What we are finding in our activist work (Brandon’s side of the organization) is that we can do for the equivalent of one salary, what a team of lawyers was required to do in the past.

So I expect both rapid change in the profession and radical resistance to AI by the judiciary. Why… BECAUSE WE CATCH THEIR BULLSHIT and abuse of the citizenry under veil of procedure. The lawyers are afraid to. The public is too ignorant to. So we see ‘tumult’ and judicial turnover over the next twenty years.

Which, if you can imagine the moral absolutism of the people that work in our organization, that’s sort of what we live for….

Cheers

cc:
@ThruTheHayes