According to Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne’s study, The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation (the “Article”), paralegals and legal assistants (collectively, “Professionals”) are likely to be future victims of computerization. Although lawyers were labelled as non-computerizable, I am not personally convinced that the ship has sailed (“Into the Sunset”) for these significant Professionals in the legal field.

The authors of the Article referred to computerization as “job automation by means of computer-controlled equipment.” With legal innovations such as Blue J Legal, ROSS, and Knomos – among others, I cannot deny that these technologies will assist and improve the field – but I do not necessarily agree they will completely replace Professionals through computerization.

Considering the authors’ conclusions that computerization will mainly substitute low-skill and low-wage jobs – and wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with the probability of computerization. This leads me to believe that the authors (through the probability software described in the Article) have assumed that the Professionals are low-skilled, have low-wages and have low levels of educational attainment.

The authors described human biases as a constraint of human operations. They used the example of Israeli judges as being substantially more generous in their rulings following a lunch break. I believe a similar bias contradicts the findings of the Article in relation to the Professionals – specifically, that in determining what is low-skilled and a low level of educational attainment, comes from a biased and prejudiced perspective.

First, to consider the authors’ example of law firms relying on computers that scan thousands of legal documents to assist in research by sorting and presenting results graphically.  Although true and without a doubt, innovative – this example fails to recognize who will be putting the documents in the scanner. I understand that this is only one, simplistic example the authors selectively chose to use – however, I highly doubt that the lawyer will be doing the scanning.  Although he or she could be scanning, would it not be more valuable for the client to have the lawyer do traditional legal work (e.g., advocating) rather than feeding documents into the scanner?

The argument is that the lawyer doesn’t need to put the documents in the scanner because the ‘computer’ can do it, itself. But what if the papers become jammed – which is more than likely when “thousands of legal briefs and precedents” are being processed through a machine. Is it valuable for the client to displace the Professionals with this technology so that the lawyer must juggle both the legal and ‘low-skill’ task of administration?

The argument then becomes that the lawyer can out-source the scanning. If this is the case, then a similar counter-argument comes into play – that is, that someone needs to do the scanning at a price that is lower than the Professionals doing it themselves. This means that the transport of thousands of documents, the cost of ‘scanning’ employees, the overhead in that company, and the report generated would be more affordable than Professionals doing the same, in-house.

This also means that there are Professional-like employees, doing only one specific job, which requires the lawyer to obtain the documents directly from opposing counsel (because both lawyers no longer have Professional assistance), package them, send them to the company, instruct the scanning company, pay them, and then review the report. This is all assuming that the lawyer who requires the scanning is able to get a hold of opposing counsel, and opposing counsel has the time to collect, package, and send the documents himself or herself. The company would also be required to screen conflicting interests between firms and parties. What would be the outcome if the company accidentally sent the wrong report to opposing counsel? Would professional liability insurance cover the negligence of such actions? Would it not be more efficient for in-house Professionals to do the work themselves? According to the Article – it would not.

This example also fails to consider the reality that Professionals are arguably more capable than the lawyers they work with, at such ‘low-skill’ tasks. Although lawyers are legally qualified to attend court etc., the Professionals are the ones who organize, prepare and support these lawyers in their careers. Yes, computerization can organize and prepare documents, but technology cannot provide the intimate support in the flexible nature that lawyers require – in an environment that is constantly evolving. As stated in the Article, computerized social intelligence will need to be overcome for lawyers to be fully automated. This social intelligence is, in my opinion, a key component in the relationship between lawyers and Professionals. The Professionals personally know the lawyers – who they are, their writing styles, and their preferences in how ‘things get done.’ They develop rapport with the lawyers, become trusted confidants, and allow the lawyers to do the work they are qualified to do by doing the Professional work that can otherwise be done by an arguably low-skilled person with a low-level of educational achievement.

This brings me to my second critique – that Professionals have low levels of educational attainment. In the formal sense, this is true. Legal assistant and paralegal programs are commonly two-year diploma programs from accredited institutions. Although this is a ‘lower-level’ of educational attainment than a four-year undergraduate degree and three-year law degree, this fails to consider previous educational attainment and professional experiences. Taking the perspective of the authors, Professionals with twenty years of experience in the legal field would be replaced by computerization over lawyers who have recently been admitted to their respective bars. This would mean that those lawyers have been trained in ‘low-skilled,’ administrative tasks and that they are more capable and efficient at completing the same.

Although I do not disagree that lawyers should be able to understand how to complete such tasks on their own, I do not believe that this means Professionals will be replaced by computerization. These Professionals are professionally trained and educated to contribute to the final product for clients. This product requires, in addition to administrative tasks, the use of specialized technology (that I do not disagree should be used) for specific tasks, that assist lawyers in providing advice and legal services. These Professionals conduct their specialized services in order for lawyers to execute their own specialized services, that the Professionals cannot necessarily do.

For example, Professionals require specialized training in corporate governance in order to maintain the registration of corporations, incorporate companies and ensure the corporations are complying with provincial, national and in some cases, international standards. Although lawyers should have an understanding of such legal services, should the lawyer be independently responsible for these tasks? Maybe. What about when there are hundreds of clients, who have multiple corporations, who require incorporation of more, that all require annual filings and compliance? What if these corporations are involved in litigation, negotiations or are in the process of becoming bankrupt? Where should the lawyers focus their efforts? According to the authors – on the tasks that are arguably computerizable.

The argument again becomes out-sourcing of, using this example, registry services. This means the responsible lawyer, who is trusted in maintaining the corporations, must personally organize and schedule the required filings and ensure the corporate minute books are up-to-date. Although corporations can do this themselves – that is maintain their own registration, which many do – not all clients want to or have the ability or time to do so. That is why they hire lawyers, who utilize the entrusted Professionals, to contribute to satisfying the needs of clients.

Although these are a few of many examples of the tasks that Professionals undertake in the legal field, and both paralegals and legal assistants have different responsibilities and obligations (and should maybe not be categorized as Professionals under the same category), I believe that this further complicates the simplistic conclusion that these professions are computerizable. I agree with the authors that new technologies must be adopted, and that resistance to do so is dangerous with an evolving society. In addition, I agree that Professionals should (and will) adapt to these changes. I just find it very difficult to comprehend that these roles in the field are in essence – obsolete. Instead, paralegals and legal assistants will utilize and embrace technological advancements to further the interests of clients, in the administration of legal services.

This is just my critical analysis of specific conclusions in the Article. Maybe this is the exact bias the authors discussed – in my understanding and the value I see in paralegals and legal assistants. If this is the case, according to the authors, I might be the exception to lawyers being non-computerizable, and as John Lanchester put it in The Robots are Coming, “going, going, and about to be gone.” #L21C