Legal AI won’t replace you. Poor judgement will
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 interesting 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.
The law doesn’t run
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 draft comprehensively. 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.
No one-size-fits-all
There’s another myth to deal with. The idea that once AI is “good enough”, there will be one tool to rule them all. Outputs optimised, results standardised, decisions accelerated.
That’s not how legal work operates. The law thrives on tension, challenge and 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. An AI tool might make you faster. It might make your arguments better. But it won’t necessarily make the human sharper or replace the human.
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.
What separates the average from the exceptional?
AI has flattened the hierarchy. You no longer need a building full of associates to compete (or at least by 2035). You need one good brain, the best legal AI tool (ahem, Lexis+ AI) – and the right prompt. Scale is no longer the deep moat it once was. I believe there are three things that are important.
It's not a shortcut. It’s a multiplier.
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 (cough, splutter, Lexis+ AI) – 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.
Will AI take my job?
Honestly, I’d be as wealthy as an NQ lawyer in a US law firm 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 just 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.
Director of Behavioral Innovation | Transformation in Law Through Behavior Change |
5moMatthew Leopold Your article is refreshing and brilliant, as always. I couldn't agree more with your view on things. Your quote "...the bottleneck isn’t technology. It’s behaviour" will become my mantra. Thanks for steering the conversation in the right direction!
Combining legal and business expertise with a passion for the Rule of Law. Trustee, coach, gym-goer, long-suffering West Ham fan.
5moGreat article Matthew. The reality is that there is *always* a slice of the profession that is being replaced or overtaken (and therefore made redundant). The same was true when online legal tools really gained traction and replaced the traditional library. Some embraced that, some wanted to stick with hardcopy print. It didn't happen overnight but, with time, the cost and efficiency benefits won out and those lawyers that didn't adopt were gradually replaced. I suspect the AI transition will be quicker, and there will be some left behind, but those that embrace and use it will remain - they will work differently, but they will still be here!
Legal Content Specialist
5mo"Some lawyers will race ahead. They’ll embrace AI with both hands and quietly start outperforming their peers." - the logical conclusion is surely that most lawyers will therefore be outperformed and become redundant. The efficiency argument (ie that a firm will still make more profit by adopting AI even if it retains all its fee earners) is a utopian dream. Ultimately law firms aren't charities and will generally prioritise profit above staff retention - what do you think happened to all those secretaries in the "typing pools"? The writing is on the wall, not just for lawyers, but for most people who earn a living using their brains alone. The rather snobbish concept so popular in the 90s, that graduates were more "valuable" than manual labourers or trades people, and the false advertising of New Labour that going to university would guarantee higher lifetime earnings, has been turned on its head!
AI-Driven Legal Ops Transformation | High-Stakes, Regulated Industries | Speed, Resilience, Compliance | Co-CEO, Ekamm8
5moI agree with you Matthew Leopold - it is about using the tools to get better, faster and stronger.