It’s true, computers are invading the earth – in fact I no longer use a key to get into my house, and apparently my television is smarter than I am. As mentioned in The Future of Employment, tasks that once required human skill are now being completed by artificial intelligence. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne point out that not only are hard-skill tasks being taken over by computers, but also soft-skill “non-routine” tasks are being completed by technology. Basically, the ability to write legal opinions or to provide medical diagnoses are no longer restricted to human capability.
Though I should probably be celebrating the fact that our society has come far from the days where the invention of the wheel was a huge technological breakthrough – I still cannot seem to muster up enough enthusiasm to be happy about EVERY computerized invention. In fact, I personally believe that we as a society should tread lightly where technology replaces human skill as a main purpose, rather than a byproduct. Sure, Richard Susskind may say that I am experiencing the first stage of denial (of the three stages outlined in chapter 8 of Tomorrow’s Lawyers). At times, this is true. There are days where my denial is unreasonable and I think, “pish posh Mr. Kowalski, the threat of extinction isn’t even real!” However, the days that I choose to be real with myself and try to prepare for the inevitable changes to come in the legal profession, I realize that my denial actually comes from an underlying fear – the fear that a profession that is so heavily based on relationships will one day become a profession full of drones.
If this fear were to become reality, it would completely shatter the very reason that I chose to become a lawyer. My mother was a social worker, and very early on I came to appreciate the satisfaction in helping others resolve their issues and improve their lives. However the key to my mother’s success was her ability to empathize and to not treat her cases systematically. I was drawn to the legal profession because I knew, and still know, that I can make a difference because I genuinely care. However my passion does not come from a tiny computer embedded in my brain, it comes from within – it’s the human element. It is this very human element that drives many great lawyers to put forward the strongest arguments and to do their best work, and it is this very human element that allows clients to trust lawyers with their issues.
John Lanchester puts it best in his article, The Robots Are Coming, where he points out:
“For many years the problem with robots has been that computers are very good at things we find difficult but very bad at things we find easy. They are brilliant at chess but terrible at the cognitive skills we take for granted, one of the most important being something scientists call SLAM, for ‘simultaneous localisation and mapping’: the ability to look at a space and see it and know how to move through it, all simultaneously, and with good recall.”
I believe that “SLAM” is what lawyers do on a daily basis. During my summer articling experience I realized the importance of knowing my audience; understanding the sensitivity that needs to be afforded to clients; and to read social cues of the professionals I worked with in order to do my job well. I definitely do not know the science behind my proposition, but I truly believe that computers are not capable of the above. A computer can be equipped with the best algorithms to exist, but there is nothing like adrenaline and passion when a solicitor closes a tricky transaction or a litigator delivers a difficult argument.
Though I wait with open arms for technology to reduce menial tasks that come with being a lawyer, such as formatting a document or compiling single PDF’s into one file, I am not looking forward to seeing artificial intelligence take over aspects of the legal profession which require passion and drive. We as a society need to be cautious of extinguishing the human element.
I appreciate your concern Harman and I agree that through these technological advancements in the legal profession, the ability to empathize and to not treat cases systematically is diminished. If we think we have a problem with trust now, replacing the human element in the legal profession will solidify this trust problem for future generations of lawyers.
One of the key elements of our profession is to be able to empathize and understand our clients. The more a lawyer’s job gets replaced with software, the less opportunity lawyers have to build rapport and a trustworthy relationship with their clients.
Technological advances should definitely extend to administrative tasks that lawyers are currently bogged down with. However, we should limit these advancements to just that, ensuring that it does not replace or negatively affect the relationship between the client and the lawyer.
I agree Sarvesh. I find that it is important for us to be critical of technology and to limit the reach in certain instances. I definitely do not think that we should over-regulate technology to the extent that innovation is stifled. However, I do believe that we as a society should be critical and thoughtful when deciding to replace human skill with technology.
Harman, your fear that the profession will be full of drones is also a fear of mine – likely resulting in my denial. It seems that in some aspects, a majority of the lawyers that schools are pumping out are like the machines from Terminator (2). They/we are trained to think and behave a certain way. We are expected to grind out long hours – without food or drinks; to fight for certain positions – committees, summers, articles; and to be (or at least try to be) perfect. Every word said or printed needs to be calculated, every move and interaction with others needs to be monitored, and every decision made needs to be executed precisely.
I agree with you that it is the social aspect that cannot be replaced, and this might be the differentiating factor that allows an individual to be a ‘firm fit.’ I wonder if these individuals are the drones that have mastered social interaction, and have programmed themselves to SLAM? Maybe these are the individuals who will work their way into the system, compromise those at the top, then replace others in the firm with computerization. Maybe these are the individuals from #L21C.
I have to completely agree Harman, the personal element involved in legal services simply cannot be replaced, particularly in areas such as family law. To demonstrate its benefits I have to tell a story where I myself forgot to sympathize with a client. This summer I answered a call from a potential client who was clearly going through a tough time in her marriage. I was having a very good day that day and was therefore in a great mood, so I answered the call with a very chipper demeanor.
I asked the client how our firm could help her and the client responded by asking whether we do family law, I informed her that we do, and asked her what particular service she was looking for. She responded using some colourful language that she wanted a divorce. Without clueing into the highly angry and emotional state that this potential client was in I responded by saying: “Well that’s great!, we’d be happy to help you.” I received nothing but dead silence in return, followed by a very curt goodbye.
Needless to say that client did not book an appointment and did not call our office back. This taught me that clients in these situations are looking for someone who is truly going to understand their problem and empathise with the emotions that inevitably come with their issues. I do not feel that computers are going to be able to offer that kind of service to clients, and while I was a dummy in this instance it taught me to ensure that I am making a conscious effort to sympathize with clients.
Thanks for sharing that story James. I think you hit the nail on the head. Law is all about the people. WIthout the people we don’t have jobs. Even if its a big-name corporation hiring a law firm, at the end of the day we are dealing with the people at the corporation. I think as long as we keep our empathy at the forefront, and keep our clients needs in mind we will generate business.
the end is near it seems….after learning about Blue J legal + Watson, how can law students do something to protect their jobs?
What role will lawyers have in the future? if any!!!
I have a VERY difficult time believing that “lawyers” will become an extinct trade, like scribes in Ancient Egypt, but all this technology has got me sweating.
Nawel, as we learned yesterday, it’s very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future! But in spite of the danger, I will go out on a limb and predict that, yes, the end of *something* is near – but the important question is what is it that is going to end, and what will take its place?
The roles, jobs and business structures for lawyers that we have learned to take for granted are likely to change significantly. But I think there will still be lawyers (or providers of legal services) for a long time. Maybe until the Superintelligence takes over everything! Why? Because there is a need for those services. What those service providers do might not look all that much like what lawyers now do. In that connection it’s important to remember that lawyers, in their current form and current roles, are NOT meeting a large percentage of people’s legal needs.
Let me suggest this: law students shouldn’t be thinking about how to protect their jobs. A job in a particular form is not an inherently good thing that deserves protection. I think it would be wiser and more promising to think about how law students can meet the needs of clients and potential clients (and that includes thinking about how to make a living doing so).
Remember that Chris Bentley told us yesterday that this generation of new lawyers has an opportunity to reach leadership positions that seniority alone would deny you for many years, but that our profession’s adherence to tradition may grant you by default. If you think about it that way, it may not even really be in your self-interest to focus on lawyers protecting their jobs. That means protecting the system in which the senior people got there by progressing over the years, and where you would have to wait in line to progress up the same ladder. In the current moment you might not have to do that (and why would you want to if you don’t have to?) Let the senior lawyers worry about protecting their jobs – and meanwhile, who knows? … maybe you can do an end-run around them.
Hi Professor,
I agree with you. I think it is easier at this point in my career to be scared of all of the changes because there is so much uncertainty. However, I do think it is important to come from a mindset of abundance rather than scarcity. If our generation of lawyers are determined to create jobs and are willing to adapt to the technological changes, we are bound to have brilliant careers.
Building off what Professor Sykes has said, “Law students shouldn’t be thinking about how to protect their jobs. A job in a particular form is not an inherently good thing that deserves protection.” This reminds me of something Mitch Kowalski said in our class with him. He stated that law shouldn’t exist in the status quo because in serves lawyers; lawyers serve clients and if there is technology that makes things more efficient or there are cost savings it absolutely should be done. I completely agree with this idea, if there are inefficiencies in the system get rid of them. But does this mean that the “Robots are taking over”?
Harman and James made some very astute observations here. There are some elements of law that will always need a human aspect to it. Not all legal problems are simple issues that can be solved objectively and rationally. Part of the challenge is that the people who need legal advice are inherently flawed like all of us. Unlike computers we have emotions, and emotions that can get in the way. There will always be a need for a lawyer to be negotiating a divorce settlement, or any legal situations where high stakes emotions are at play. But how that lawyer does their job will change as a result of advancing technology and it should because it will hopefully allow for lower costs to clients, and expedited processes to retain more clients.
Harman, I really agree with your comment that “we as a society should tread lightly where technology replaces human skill as a main purpose, rather than a byproduct.” I, like many students, also understand your fear. The fact that we may not have a future in an industry because “the machines are coming” is daunting. I’m sure its similar to how industrial workers felt as machines replaced their jobs.
At the end of the day we’re in the service industry, which involves humans serving other humans.
However, as Professor Sykes has mentioned, it holds weight that we should not be thinking about how to protect our jobs. Technology has benefited many industries. Medical science is at the height of its service as a result of technology, lawyers are able to handle issues and respond to clients’ issues at a much quicker rate than before because of technology. In this sense, we need to be mindful of how technology will serve as a legal tool moving forward. Surgeons and doctors have not ceased to exist as a result of new cutting-edge operating machinery. They have simply learned to adapt to the introduction of these tools to better serve the healthcare industry. In the same way, we as future lawyers must find ways to adapt to new technology and how it can help us better provide service for clients.
E-mail has changed around the legal industry in itself. Delivery of documents and correspondence now occurs at our fingertips as opposed to snail mail. James’s story, and Harman’s story illustrate just how necessary the human element is to legal services, and I believe that will always be necessary in the legal industry. We just need to find ways to keep providing for the human element, and maybe sometimes using technology is the answer. We may need to preserve and expand this profession, which is heavily based on relationships, with technological tools.