At present, some of the most prospective uses for AI in the legal profession involve tasks traditionally undertaken by junior lawyers, clerks, or paralegals, such as legal research, first drafts of correspondence, due diligence and document review, Lawyerly recently reported. It seems inevitable that, as AI tools continue to develop, AI will become – if it is not already – more efficient and effective at some tasks than junior lawyers. Human beings are capable of many things, but processing thousands of documents or search results within seconds is unlikely to ever be a skill we’ll possess.

While some law firms have been quick to embrace AI, incorporating a mix of general-purpose and specialised legal AI tools into daily business processes, others remain cautious, preferring to wait until concerns about bias, reliability, and security (amongst other things) have been resolved.

Notwithstanding the variety of views on AI, the consensus is clear: it is here to stay, and it has the potential to reshape the junior lawyer’s role. AI presents an opportunity for all lawyers – junior and senior – to come together and explore different (and perhaps, better) ways to work, and it is up to industry leaders to facilitate the process.

Shifting division of labour

VIEW ALL

On the surface, the automation of repetitive or time-consuming tasks undertaken by junior lawyers, such as case summaries, event chronologies and due diligence, is a win-win: clients save on costs, and junior lawyers are freed up to tackle more complex, engaging work.

Some argue, however, that these seemingly mundane tasks are necessary steps in learning how to analyse and apply the law, from a technical legal and commercial perspective. Slavish reliance on AI and automation may inadvertently hinder junior lawyers’ development of these (traditionally) essential legal skills, and subsequently their ability to effectively oversee AI-driven processes and output, according to law.com.

At the same time, the volume of material that junior lawyers handle today has grown exponentially compared to pre-internet generations. With electronic databases containing (in some cases) millions of documents, and the universe of case law, legislative material and commentary at our fingertips, junior lawyers are often under significant time pressure to produce complex, thorough, and lengthy pieces of work. If AI can halve the time taken to perform such tasks, freeing up junior lawyers to add value in other ways, such as drafting advice and legal submissions, case management, developing client relationships and strategic planning (as noted by AFR), doesn’t it make sense to take advantage of AI’s capabilities?

One view is that such tasks have traditionally been the purview of senior lawyers, not just because juniors lack the time and capacity to do them, but because seniors have an extra layer of experience and insight, developed over years of practice, which some argue informs these tasks.

Nevertheless, as law firms incorporate AI into legal practice, the division of labour will inevitably shift. It will be important to upskill junior lawyers in these areas, albeit recognising that their initial contributions to strategic decisions or client relationships may be developmental rather than immediately transformative. The goal, Thomson Reuters has argued, should be to develop firm leaders and industry specialists of the future, rather than tomorrow.

Finding the right balance

To make the most of opportunities presented by AI without sacrificing (or neglecting) the development of junior lawyers’ legal skills, the balance lies in collaboration. AI should not be seen as a replacement for junior lawyers nor as an alternative for performing legal tasks without supervision or review.

As lawyers in New York and Melbourne discovered publicly in the last 18 months, having filed AI-generated fake case citations with courts, lawyers at all levels need to remember that they are responsible for the work that they produce. Neglecting to supervise or verify AI output may lead to costly consequences for law firms and their clients, and blaming false, misleading, or inaccurate information on AI is not an option.

It is also a lawyer’s responsibility to know when they can and can’t use AI. A recently published NSW Supreme Court practice note prohibits the use of AI in the preparation of affidavits, witness statements or other evidentiary material filed with the court and in the drafting and editing of judgements, among other things. While junior lawyers are not, in many cases, the final decision-makers, they need to be aware of the risks and rules around the use of AI and own their step in the process. Not only should they verify the accuracy of the AI output, but they should also understand the basis of the AI output before incorporating it into a work product.

The onus of ensuring that junior lawyers don’t fall behind as a result of AI automation or augmentation is not theirs alone to bear. Law firms and academic institutions share the responsibility for providing junior lawyers (and, before that, law students) with opportunities to develop both essential legal skills that enable them to do the work and future-focused tech skills that will help them do it better.

At the end of the day, our clients are human beings who have thoughts, feelings and experiences that are not determined by an algorithm. AI might help us do our work quicker, but our human qualities – empathy, emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and the ability to connect on a personal level – remain invaluable. So long as junior lawyers are given the opportunity to nurture these qualities, AI should not be seen as a threat to their roles but as a tool to enhance their potential. Lawyers who embrace AI’s possibilities will outlast those who don’t.

Madi McCarthy is a practice development lawyer, and Shannon Cain is an associate at LK Law.