I would not describe myself as a tech luddite (others have!), but I grew up in the Pacman generation, without a computer at home (sure, some more affluent friends had the shiny Commodore 64, the first affordable personal computer of the 1980s). At university, I didn't have a laptop, I read texts and case law, and wrote out exams and even assignments.
​

So, you could describe me as a slow tech adopter, except when it comes to Generative AI, which I have totally embraced. I think this is a feature of the fact that, as a student of the humanities, I have found a bot that can write. Sure, not through the recital of the alphabet - these mythical bots have 'learnt' to write artificially through the application of patterns from existing data.
​

In my view, lawyers and law firm leaders are in denial about the application of AI including its potential to disrupt traditional legal services.

​
I read with interest the Thomson Reuters annual Tech AI and the Law Report, based on a survey of 869 legal professionals over a period from 1 July to 20 August 2024 (capturing private practice and inhouse professionals).

​
Not a huge sample size, but I think one reported statistic reflected this level of denial. It was reported that 52% of inhouse professionals considered that billable time as a business model, hampered innovation and the adoption of AI. I was frankly surprised this number was so low - perhaps it's a feature of the fact that inhouse counsel had (in the main) spent some time in private practice and were perhaps still somewhat captured by this mentality. I think if you were to survey non lawyer clients who commonly purchased legal services, this number would be much higher!

​
My view is that inevitably clients will lead the charge, and we will see the continued rise of value-based and fixed fee pricing models. Fierce market competition will mean that law firms will leverage the value and efficiency of tech including AI, and adopt different pricing structures aimed at winning more market share.

​
Let's not forgot that in the history of law and other professional services business, the billable hour is a fairly recent phenomena taking off in the 1980s and 1990s. I am not suggesting that time costing has necessarily had its day (vested interests remain strong, and it's a reliable business metric which factors in the complexity of litigation and certain transactions). I do think however that as a costing model it is likely to significantly decline in its continued acceptance and adoption - a change led by clients and facilitated by tech including AI.

​
A major disruption is likely to be at the junior end of the market - graduates and junior lawyers will not be required to undertake as much of the more mundane drafting, summarising and document generation work. This will involve the profession rethinking how junior lawyers earn their 'stripes' and gain experience. It will also necessarily reduce the number of practising junior lawyers in my view, consistent with modern thinking that Law is now a more generalist degree and discipline. I say all this as a father of a 20-year-old who is now studying Law, and despite advice to the contrary, seems intent on practising law!

​
It's not all bad news - strategy, data analysis, negotiation and relationship management skills will continue to be required and will remain at a premium.

​
You might disagree - but as a current law firm leader, or as leaders of the next generation, I suggest you remain open and agile to this change and, better yet, plan to get ahead of it. When disruption happens, it happens quickly - just ask the former execs of Kodak, Blockbuster, or those wedded to more traditional retail or legacy media businesses.