For decades, lawyers have had an “information” advantage over their clients. Benefiting from the complex and often mystifying legal environment we operate in has placed lawyers in a position of knowledge which clients find difficult to counter. AI is rapidly rebalancing this inequality at a speed that many in the profession seem unwilling to admit.
As a legal professional, I have spent years with the comfort of knowing my area of expertise and being confident enough to believe that what I can offer to a client far outstrips the odd huff and puff when discussing fees. Put simply, I was worth more than I cost. The difficulty with AI is that in a matter of months (not even years), it has narrowed not only the information and knowledge gap between client and advisor, but also the ability to assess, advise on implementation and evaluate risk. AI isn’t perfect but the legal profession’s perspective of what it brings to the table is as misguided – just in a different way. We have overestimated our perceived value and finally something has emerged that is going to cause us to re-evaluate.
Recent developments in AI are fundamentally changing my interactions with clients. I am seeing more and more engagements where the client comes pre-armed with an AI-generated document which they would like sanity-checked, rather than drafted from scratch (which as you all know isn’t what actually happens usually anyway). Furthermore, clients are taking documents provided to them, using AI to stress-test them, and then returning with additional comments such as “do you not think we should cover off this risk?”. Finally, I am also seeing clients re-evaluate risk – they know AI isn’t perfect, but they now have access to a tool that they can use without even seeking legal advice, as the perceived risk is low.
I have read many articles from legal professionals discussing how AI is not a threat as clients value the practical, commercial and (sometimes) empathetic advice that they receive and that is not something that AI can deliver. While I have some sympathy for the empathy argument, the practical and commercial elements often highlighted do not generally reflect most businesses’ experience when dealing with lawyers. When speaking to potential clients, the concerns are often the same – too expensive, lack of transparency over costs, advice is not as practical as we like to pretend, and a failure to understand or even engage in the objectives of the client often leave them bemused as to what they have paid for.
Many law firms are now promoting their use of AI. Keen to show clients that we are not, as a profession, still stuck with quill and parchment, firms across the globe are promoting their AI integration, dismissing their support staff and cutting junior recruitment. However, what we are not generally seeing is law firms stating that, as a consequence of their AI investment, the cost of the service provided will fall or delivery times will improve. So far, AI is seen as cost-saving and efficiency tool for the law firm rather than a time and expense advantage for the client.
Adopting AI is only one part of the challenge for the legal profession. Undoubtedly, at the moment, AI represents a significant investment, which law firms are offsetting through staff reductions or outsourcing rather than passing any meaningful advantage to the client. However, the real challenge is to adapt to the changes and put the client at the centre. We have to move away from the inane marketing spiel of being “plain speaking and commercially minded” and actually deliver the very adjectives we have for years promoted, but only really touched at face value. We have to also remember that whilst AI is undoubtedly developing rapidly, as a profession, it is judgment rather than knowledge which can still allow us to stand out.
So, what does this mean in practice? In reality, all law firms will no doubt have their own take on what is needed, but for me it is time to:
- Invest more time in understanding a client’s business; the pressures they face and their objectives.
- Sector knowledge. Law firms need to change their investment and training programmes. Understanding the sectors your client operates in provides an opportunity to bring real value to the client and help them not only overcome risks but also maximise opportunity.
- Rethink pricing structures. Whilst the hourly rate will no doubt continue to play a part; we need to engage in alternative and innovative fee structures where appropriate.
- We need to be more pro-active. Too often, lawyers complete a transaction and move on to the next. The relationship put on hold until the next “job”. Constant engagement – not only just to “check in” but also to provide regular updates is just as important as the paying job.
- Not forgetting the importance of junior lawyers. AI has the potential to undermine the usefulness of junior lawyers that have often don’t have the expertise or experience to offer a direct commercial benefit to the client. The risk is that juniors become a disposable expense rather than understanding that if you are going to be able to exit at some point in the future – having the juniors moving through the ranks is imperative.
- And lastly, we need to embrace AI, not be scared to admit when it has done a good job and be prepared to accept that the AI system has reduced the time we need to complete and review a task and ensure that the client benefits from that efficiency. We should maintain a healthy scepticism so that we don’t rely on everything it produces but equally embrace it as a useful tool to assist in delivery whilst we focus on the client.
AI is not the end of the legal profession. It will, and in my view, should, help bring to an end a business model that is based on reactive advice, opaque pricing and a knowledge imbalance. Firms that succeed will need to not only adopt but also (more importantly) adapt to AI so as to deliver a more transparent and client focused service.
As a final note, I did run this article through AI. It described the piece as “strong and thought‑provoking,” noting that it avoided the common extremes of claiming AI will either replace lawyers entirely or change nothing at all. It then awarded scores of 8.5/10 for content and 7/10 for structure. For the avoidance of doubt, aside from the odd spelling correction it picked up, this article is entirely my own work. Any criticisms, constructive or otherwise, are therefore mine to take on board.
Author Bio
Garry Mackay is the Director of Technology and IP, with over 25 years’ experience in dealing with commercial and technology matters. Garry acts for clients on a variety of technology matters – from small businesses looking to promote and grow their tech offerings, to international companies looking to invest in their global technology requirements and licensing needs. Garry has an IT background and is certified in Prince2 Agile project management.