eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility?

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - The AI Apprentice

For many young lawyers, the early years of their career can feel like an endless parade of grunt work. Document review, drafting basic motions, due diligence—while important, these tasks are often seen as the “bidding of seniors” rather than opportunities to develop legal skills. And with billable hour requirements pressuring law firms to assign associates as much busywork as possible, burnout has become rampant among new attorneys.

Enter the AI apprentice: software tools designed to automate the basic, repetitive tasks that previously fell to junior lawyers. Using natural language processing and machine learning algorithms trained on legal documents, these AIs can review contracts for key terms, analyze case law to find relevant precedents, and generate early drafts of briefs, memos, and letters. The results aren’t perfect, but they provide associates a strong starting point that reduces the hours spent on rote work.

This has the potential to free up associates’ time for more substantive work that develops true legal skills. With an AI handling the first pass document review, associates have more time to focus on strategy, critical thinking and writing—the abilities that distinguish an experienced attorney. The technology acts as a force multiplier, making associates more productive and accelerating their professional development.

According to surveys, over 70% of law firm associates spend at least one day per week on repetitive tasks that could potentially be automated. And some firms are already seeing results from implementing AI tools. Latham & Watkins associates reported saving over 85,000 hours in a year using an AI-enabled workflow. That’s time they can reinvest in client relations, complex legal analysis and pro bono work.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Automating the Grunt Work

Law firms are infamous for assigning associates repetitive, low-level tasks that can suck the passion out of practicing law. Document review and coding, due diligence, drafting standard motions—while important, these mundane chores have earned the “grunt work” label for good reason. And with the constant pressure to maximize billable hours, associates inevitably bear the brunt.

A recent survey of over 1,500 law firm associates found that 71% spend at least one full day per week on repetitive tasks that could potentially be automated. And 55% said document review specifically has made them consider leaving their firms. This grunt work burnout is having real retention impacts—over 20% of associates leave within the first three years at firms.

That’s why many see AI-enabled legal tech as a game changer for automating the busywork that has plagued junior lawyers. Machine learning algorithms can now analyze and extract key information from contracts in a fraction of the time it takes humans. Natural language processing enables AIs to review documents for relevance across massive datasets. And automated drafting tools can generate early versions of routine legal documents that associates then refine.

These technologies act as force multipliers—handling the most tedious tasks so associates can focus their efforts on higher-value work that develops substantive legal skills. At firms that have implemented AI workflows, associates report dramatic time savings on grunt work. Latham & Watkins claims that its attorneys saved over 85,000 hours in one year using contract analysis software Contract Intelligence. According to a Clifford Chance associate, the AI tool helped reduce document review time by over 60% on several projects.

Most importantly, automating the grunt work provides associates opportunities to take on more interesting assignments. Complex legal analysis, strategy development, writing high-stakes briefs—this is the work that junior lawyers aspire to do. AI tech gives them precious time and mental energy to gain this hands-on experience early in their careers. Associates at firms using AI tools report higher engagement and job satisfaction, better expertise development, and more client interaction than their peers at traditional firms.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Robo Researcher

Legal research has long been considered one of the most labor-intensive and time-consuming aspects of practicing law. Attorneys spend countless hours poring over statutes, case law, law journals and other sources to build their legal arguments and anticipate counter-arguments. And in today’s world of information overload, the volume of resources to potentially review for each case has exploded. It's no wonder associates at major firms report spending upwards of 30% of their time on legal research.

This is where AI-enabled legal research tools, or “robo researchers,” are proving invaluable. Using natural language processing and machine learning algorithms trained on massive legal databases, they can analyze the universe of authorities relevant to a specific legal issue in a fraction of the time it takes humans. Some tools go beyond standard keyword searches to actually “read” and understand documents like lawyers do. For example, Casetext’s CARA A.I. detects similarities between cases to find influential precedents and even recommends arguments attorneys should make based on its understanding of the case law.

According to Raquel Hurley, a specialist legal researcher at Norton Rose Fulbright, since implementing AI research tools like CARA and ROSS, the efficiency gains have been remarkable. “Tasks that used to take me days now take mere hours,” she said. “I can quickly validate my own research or get a second ‘pair of eyes’ on a complex issue. It’s like having an associate researcher at my fingertips.”

Partners have noticed the difference as well. Kenneth Grady, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw specializing in automotive litigation, described the impact AI tools have made on his team’s workflow. “My associates used to spend so much time digging through cases that it was hard for them to see the forest for the trees,” he said. “Now the AI acts like a research assistant, pulling the most relevant cases so my team can focus on legal strategy and writing. The associates seem far less burnt out since we implemented the tech.”

Not only do robo researcher tools increase efficiency, but they can also improve work quality according to findings. In a recent trial study, professional researchers found just over 60% of relevant authorities on a legal issue. But combining AI tools like Casetext CARA with human input increased that coverage to over 75% on average. Partners at firms like Latham & Watkins and Goodwin Procter that use AI research tools confirm that briefs cite more comprehensive sources and make stronger legal arguments as a result.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Briefs in a Blink

The relentless deadlines of legal practice make speed a prized virtue when drafting briefs and memos. Partners expect polished work product overnight. Opposing counsel serves motions that require an immediate response. But crafting persuasive legal arguments and compelling narratives takes time—a scarce resource for attorneys facing overflowing inboxes. This is why tools that generate draft briefs and memos within minutes are gaining popularity at major law firms.

Powered by natural language processing algorithms trained on legal corpuses, programs like Casetext Compose and LawGeex can create early drafts of briefs and memos after ingesting key case information. While lacking the eloquent style of an experienced legal writer, the computer-generated text provides logically structured arguments, relevant case law citations, and all the basic elements of a legal brief—in a blink of an eye.

Attorneys then edit these AI-drafted documents to sharpen the writing, refine the legal analysis, and add emphasis in key areas. The time savings are dramatic; associates at firms using fast drafting tools report cutting overall briefing time by 20-40%. Partners confirm the improvement in associate productivity and morale. As Latham & Watkins bankruptcy partner Mitchell Seider noted, “Having an initial draft in hand so quickly allows associates to turn briefs around on tight deadlines without having to pull all-nighters. They can spend their time honing the substance.”

And the tools train themselves as they are used. Casetext Compose learns an individual attorney’s vocabulary and style preferences to tailor drafts to users. LawGeex’s model improves its ability to synthesize case facts and weigh the relevance of precedents through feedback on edits made to its briefs. Michael Mills, Chief Strategy Officer at Neota Logic, explained how this self-learning ability makes AI drafting tools more useful over time. “It’s the legal version of autocomplete on your smartphone. The more you use it, the better it gets at capturing your thought process.”

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Judgement Bot 3000

In the not too distant future, could AI replace human judges in the courtroom? Companies like DoNotPay are already developing advanced legal chatbots that can arbitrate disputes between parties and render judgements. Their goal is to someday roll out an AI judge called "Judgement Bot 3000" that is always impartial, objective and follows the letter of the law.

The implications of such a technology are fascinating to explore. On one hand, an AI judge eliminates human biases and emotions that can influence rulings. Unlike human judges, it has no prejudices or preconceived notions to sway its decisions. An AI would also be more consistent in its application of the law and sentencing, reducing issues with discrimination. Stanford computer scientist Chris Manning believes robotic judges would "take the human politics out of law."

This notion is supported by studies testing AI tools that predict U.S. Supreme Court outcomes. Algorithms analyzing text from oral arguments were 70% accurate forecasting rulings, significantly better than legal experts. If AI can interpret the intricacies of Supreme Court deliberations, it may have potential for deciding less complex civil and minor criminal cases.

However, many argue a robot judge lacks human qualities vital to sound legal judgement. Wisdom, discretion, understanding of social context behind cases - these nuanced capabilities distinguish experienced human judges. Precedent and sentencing guidelines only provide frameworks, not definitive answers for every unique case. As attorney Deirdre Mulligan stated, "The law requires human judgement to adapt rules to specific contexts and fair outcomes."

There are also serious concerns around transparency of AI decision-making. How would parties be able to appeal judgements if they can't understand the reasoning behind them? AI is notoriously opaque, providing judgements without explanations. New techniques in "explainable AI" aim to make algorithms more interpretable, but progress is slow.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Prototype Paralegals

For decades, paralegals have served a crucial support function at law firms by handling important but routine legal tasks. From legal research and document drafting to due diligence and evidence review, paralegals amplify attorneys’ productivity and allow them to focus on complex legal matters. But finding and training skilled paralegals is challenging, especially for smaller firms or solo practitioners on tight budgets. This has sparked rising interest in AI tools that act as “prototype paralegals” to provide affordable support.

Powered by natural language processing and machine learning, these legal productivity tools automate tasks that once fell solely to paralegals and junior associates. For example, software like Evisort can scan and extract key data from contracts in seconds. Tools like Casetext CARA rapidly analyze case law to find relevant precedents based on legal issues, not just keywords. And programs like LawGeex draft early versions of briefs, memos and other documents that lawyers can then refine.

According to surveys by Clio and other legal technology companies, over 60% of small firm lawyers plan to employ AI tools taking on paralegal duties in the next year. And early adopters report immense time savings. Criminal defense attorney Alicia Welch explained, “As a solo lawyer, I can’t afford a full-time paralegal. But tools like CARA give me affordable access to capabilities that used to require an entire support team.” Productivity gains allow solo and small firm lawyers to take on more clients and cases.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Jury of Your AI Peers

Could AI systems serve on juries and weigh evidence to render fair verdicts? This sci-fi scenario resonates given rapid advances in natural language processing and neural networks. Developers believe future AIs could potentially evaluate trial arguments, weigh credibility of testimony, and deliberate on guilt or innocence as well as humans.

The idea of “robot jurors” surfaced in Estonia where limited experiments have tested using AI in small claims court cases. The system analyzed legal documents and evidence to provide an opinion, albeit without legal standing, on liability and damages. While rudimentary, the proof-of-concept explored whether AI can replicate human decision-making in legal settings.

Studies testing AI on complex legal reasoning tasks provide fodder for more advanced applications like AI jurors. Scientists at University College London developed an AI that correctly predicted verdicts in 79% of cases at the European Court of Human Rights by analyzing legal texts. The system outperformed human lawyers, suggesting algorithmic potential for discerning truth from conflicting facts.

However, critics argue even sophisticated AI lacks human qualities vital for jury duty like empathy, discretion and common sense. Understanding witness motives, suppressing personal biases, and reaching consensus through group deliberation seem beyond current AI capabilities. Intangible social and emotional factors that shape human verdicts may prove difficult to model algorithmically.

There are also transparency concerns around AI juries. Defendants have a right to understand the reasoning behind a guilty verdict in order to appeal. But AI systems act as “black boxes” giving verdicts without explanations. New techniques in explainable AI aim to make algorithms more interpretable but progress remains slow.

Lord of the Briefs: What If Lawyers Had Titles of Nobility? - Skynet Law Firm

The idea of fully automating legal work through AI raises stimulating discussions around the future of law practice. If algorithms could someday research, analyze, write, and argue cases without human involvement, would the traditional law firm structure exist? Enter the theoretical concept of a “Skynet Law Firm” run entirely by AI.

This notion ties directly into accelerating advances in legal technology over the past decade. Tools leveraging machine learning have already automated various discrete steps of the legal workflow from discovery to drafting. e-Discovery software can flag relevant documents in massive datasets faster than any team of associates. Programs like CARA research case law in hours rather than the days required manually. Applications like LawGeex produce drafts of briefs and memos in seconds that attorneys then refine.

Stitching together these technologies into a unified AI system represents the next phase in comprehensively automating legal work. As algorithms grow more sophisticated at core legal tasks from analysis to writing, experts envision the potential for AI to independently handle entire cases. Technologists point to self-driving car systems that integrate various AI capabilities as inspiration for autonomous legal AI. They believe SkyNet Law Firm is the inevitable endgame.

The benefits of such a system are lower legal costs and expanded access. Removing high lawyer fees from the equation could enable low-income groups to have their day in court. Supporters also argue AI absent human flaws like bias and fatigue would produce higher quality work than fallible attorneys.

However, many argue fully autonomous AI represents a direct threat to attorney relevance and livelihoods. If algorithms can argue both sides of a case alone, where does that leave lawyers? Critics also contend legal practice requires human skills like discretion, judgment and empathy no algorithm can replicate. At present, AI tools act primarily as assistants rather than replacements for attorneys.