0330 161 1234
Richard Susskind is a wise and well-respected thought leader. He writes intelligently and informatively about the legal market and technology. Today, he penned an article for The Times entitled: “Artificial Intelligence could replace traditional lawyers by 2035”. That’s a seductive headline if ever I have heard one.
It’s bold. It’s dramatic. And, in my view, it’s mostly nonsense.
If you’ve ever worked with a lawyer, you’ll know that diligence and accuracy is key. Lawyers are trained to think first, think second and think third. Then, thinking done, they’ll do ‘just one more check’ before sharing guidance or direction. Speed is not a defining feature.
Now, legal AI is always seriously impressive. It is getting better by the day. Tools like Lexis+ AI can empower legal research, summarise cases and carry out fairly comprehensive drafting. The value AI adds is no longer hypothetical. Legal AI is being trialled widely and adopted at scale. Over the next few years, the pressure for all lawyers and law firms to adopt this technology will only grow. Here, Susskind and I are perfectly aligned.
But the bottleneck isn’t technology. It’s behaviour.
Some lawyers will race ahead. They’ll embrace AI with both hands and quietly start outperforming their peers. Others will move at a more comfortable shuffle. A few will cling to the inkwell until the lights go out.
The pace won’t be even. The adoption won’t be smooth. Will AI be a full replacement? Not in this decade.
There’s another myth to deal with: that once AI is “good enough”, we’ll all use the same system. One tool to rule them all. Outputs optimised, results standardised, decisions accelerated.
That’s not how legal work operates. Law thrives on tension. On challenge. On friction between views. Great lawyers don’t nod along – they push back. They test. They rewrite. In many ways working with AI is like holding a conversation in the mirror. It reflects. But it doesn’t stretch. An AI tool might make you faster. It might make your arguments better. But it won’t necessarily make the human sharper.
That’s the risk. The best lawyers don’t just know things – they test things. They engage in the messy, nuanced, human work that machines aren’t built for.
AI has flattened the hierarchy. You no longer need a building full of associates to compete. You need one good brain, the best legal AI tool – and the right prompt. Scale is no longer the deep moat it once was. I believe there are three things that are important now.
I believe that AI isn’t going to replace human effort. Yes, there will be some reorganisation of labour – technology does that. I doubt there are many typing pools left in law firms these days.
There will be lawyers who use AI to bypass thinking, speed up average work and churn out more of the same. They’ll get exactly that – faster, cheaper mediocrity. If AI becomes your autopilot, your work will look like everyone else’s. (Top tip: have you ever used the word “delve” in normal conversation? No? Didn’t think so. Probably means that text was written by AI).
But with the right tools – those grounded in verified sources and specialist content – AI becomes a multiplier, not a shortcut. Those who use it to deepen their insight, test their judgement and deliver better work at speed will be operating on a different level.
They’re not automating or delegating work. They are not working less. Instead they’re amplifying their work. They’re sharpening their output. They’re becoming something closer to superhuman.
Honestly, I’d be as wealthy as a NQ lawyer (!) if I got a pound every time someone asked me that. I think it is the wrong question to ask. As I have explained, it makes assumptions about technology, lawyers and the law. Instead, I urge you to start asking: what could my job become if I used AI better than anyone else?
In a world where the tools are available to all, your edge isn’t the software. It’s what you do with it, how deeply you think and how fiercely you care.
The future won’t be won by bots. It’ll be won by lawyers who obsess over their craft, sharpen their judgement, focus on the areas others overlook and use every tool available to raise the bar – not lower it.
* denotes a required field