Technology

Are Lawyers Really A Dying Breed?

So far, robots have not been programmed to understand humanity, to be empathetic, to comfort a client’s distress.

By  
on

I will leave all the comings and goings of what is going on a continent away (thank goodness) to those who are closer to the happenings and all the various prognostications. I have no idea (nor does anyone else really) what will happen by week’s end. All I do know is that my head is close to exploding, which may be more good than bad.

An article several months ago identified a number of professions headed for extinction, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and it’s no surprise, at least to me, that law is moving that way.

In fact, lawyers are number four on the literal hit parade, right behind travel agents, mortgage brokers, and bookkeepers and just ahead of broadcasters and middle managers. Kind of an interesting scrum to be a part of. We dinosaur lawyers thought that lawyers would always be needed, and we still are, but not to the extent and in the ways we have been.

What’s the primary reason that lawyers will be less needed going forward? Automation and artificial intelligence, which will replace a lot of jobs, including ours. Since many blue collar jobs have already felt the automation axe, white collar jobs, such as ours, are the next to bite the dust. Unless you are like Punxsutawney Phil who shows his head only on Groundhog Day, you know change is already well underway.

Just look at all the vendors offering various forms of automation and artificial intelligence that can do routine legal work better, faster, and yes, even smarter, and let’s not forget from the client’s perspective, cheaper. Not all legal jobs will go away, but a vast amount of the routine, mind-numbing work will go. I am not at all sure that’s a bad thing, given the drudgery of such tasks as written discovery, routine motion practice  and other work that make you wonder if doing frontal lobotomies with ice cream scoops might be more interesting.  Whoops, I forgot that the medical profession will also fall prey to automation, so ice cream scooping may be also done by robots.

However, all is not necessarily lost. So far, robots have not been programmed to understand humanity, to be empathetic, to comfort a client’s distress. While some clients may believe that flesh and blood lawyers are robots, we’re not…yet.

So, while one report says lawyers are headed for extinction in large part, another says not so fast: kids still want to be lawyers. A recent study looked why undergrads want to become lawyers. Let’s agree that most, if not all of them, are at a minimum five years away from getting the law degree and passing the bar, but if this survey is reflective of how the young’uns regard law practice maybe there’s hope for the profession, of course, that’s assuming there will be jobs.

Sponsored

The survey, Before the J.D., found that undergraduates want to go to law school for aspirational reasons: careers in politics, government, or public service; they are passionate about the law (wait until they actually start law school or practice); they want to help others or useful to society by giving back; they want to advocate for social change. Do you see anything in this list about making a ton of money? Making partner in Biglaw? I don’t. However, when that first student loan payment smacks them in the face, they may have no choice but to change directions. In the meantime, let’s let them be aspirational. The truth of law school, law practice, and student debt will be realities soon enough. Let’s hope that the profession is still around when they’re scratching for their first jobs.

On the trend-setting front, the State Bar of California is considering possibly revising several ethics rules that critics say deter access to justice. Revisions to nonlawyer ownership and unauthorized practice of law would acknowledge that emerging technologies are now at work in the profession and nonlawyer ownership of law firms may not be something to fear but to welcome. 

The State Bar Board of Trustees asked Indiana University law professor William Henderson to look at how a couple of our ethics rules impact access to justice. 

In his report, Henderson says that in order to bolster lagging legal productivity, lawyers need to work with other professionals to solve client problems, but current rules preclude that collaboration. 

The conclusion, as Henderson sees it, is inevitable: the profession must modify its ethical rules to permit collaboration with other disciplines. The conundrum is evident: access to justice may well be thwarted by rules that have served the public and the profession but now seem outmoded and unresponsive to their needs. Ethical rules are designed for public protection; however, it is those same ethical rules that put a stranglehold on the profession’s ability to serve the public, by restricting how and by whom legal services can be provided. Something has to give if the mission of pubic protection is to be served and enhanced.  

Sponsored

As Henderson notes, increasing pro bono is like chipping away at an iceberg. “People law” clients are those individuals and businesses who have legal needs that may be just as complex as those of institutional clients but there’s no money to pay lawyers. 

Every day folks need advice on estate planning, family law, bankruptcies, employment, intellectual property, tax, real estate, you name it, that arise on a daily basis. The problem is that right now, most of them have nowhere to turn. Yes, nonlegal service providers fill a niche, but it’s only a niche. The ban on nonlawyer ownership hurts us at a time when the profession is changing so rapidly that it’s hard to keep up. Similarly, the UPL rule is antiquated.

Allowing relaxation of certain ethical rules to permit lawyers to better serve clients would hopefully make more opportunities for those who aspire to join us. We need to be thoughtful about what we create for the future generations of clients and lawyers and expand opportunities, rather than constrict them.

old lady lawyer elderly woman grandmother grandma laptop computerJill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for more than 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].

Topics

, ,