Previously, I expressed the view that most lawyers I talk to are in denial about the disruptive force of AI. Perhaps this is a feature of the risk adverse nature of the profession, steeped in tradition and precedent. Certainly, I think that AI will see the demise of time costing, or at the very least a significant reduction in its acceptance and application.

‍

AI tools have already begun reshaping legal practices by automating repetitive tasks, improving accuracy and enhancing efficiency. Document review, legal research, contract analysis and document summarising are all tasks that once took lawyers (or paralegals/clerks) hours of time and will now be expedited. Technologies like natural language processing and machine learning enable AI systems to ‘read’ and ‘understand’ legal documents extracting relevant information in minutes. In my view, this will be particularly disruptive at the junior end of the profession. We will need to rethink how junior lawyers are to gain experience in law firms and be mentored to achieve the strategic experience and insights required to manage clients.

‍

Freed from the supposed grunt work, it's not all bad news. Tomorrow's lawyers will need to become more of an advisor, a strategist and a critical thinker. The human touch - the ability to provide nuanced judgement, ethical insight and emotional intelligence will be crucial as clients seek guidance on complex and ambiguous issues particularly apparent in litigation. This human touch including the importance of judgement will remain particularly important in personal injury litigation. The reality is that in personal injury matters, practitioners often deal in shades of grey, not necessarily in black and white. For example, judgement associated with factual findings including whether a Plaintiff will be accepted (and why), and what medical evidence will be accepted (and why), will remain critical. That is, lawyers will still be called upon to predict how a judge is likely to dispose of a matter (both factually and legally) and then develop settlement strategies to appropriately reflect this level of perceived risk.

‍

A known downside of the ADR and settlement culture in personal injury litigation is that practitioners often have less direct knowledge of the judicial approach likely to be taken based on understood preferences (with obvious exceptions). This is outweighed by the upside - the reduction in costs for litigants, and a culture of compromise reflecting risk. Putting all this aside however, the fact remains that nuanced human judgement by lawyers will still be required, particularly in personal injury litigation which invariably centres on the human story (as opposed to, say, the interpretation of contractual documents).

‍

Then there are the ethical implications of AI in law which are significant and far reaching. As AI handles more aspects of legal work, issues around bias, accountability and transparency come to the fore. It is beyond the scope of this brief article to even begin to unravel some of these complexities. Suffice to say that for lawyers this introduces a new layer of responsibility - to understand this technology and to ensure it is applied in a fair ethical and just manner.

‍

The long and the short - we are required as a profession to lift our heads out of the sand. AI is here to stay and will disrupt legal services, a disruption which in my view will be largely client led.

‍

Never has it been more important to embrace lifelong learning and a growth mindset in the profession and to develop and embrace the skills that will differentiate us from the bots - in particular, our ability to empathise, exercise judgement and uphold ethical standard.