It would seem these structural barriers are increasingly become either more porus or more malleable as AI has brought more OSS legal initiatives to empower both attorneys and regular users. The Law and lawyers are being dragged kicking and screaming into e/acc.
This does not mention either interpretation or hermeneutics. For a computer to function as a lawyer it would have to be able to perform interpretation.
I would expect such an article to start there, or at least make some argument that concludes that a computer actually could perform professional legal tasks. Which I don't think they can, just as they can't do philosophy.
Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) to begin with:
> But law isn’t actually code, and society and courts aren’t computers. [...] the law is not deterministic. You simply cannot take the facts of a case, the law as written, and predict the outcome of that case with any real certainty, even though the formality of the legal system makes people think it works like a computer — that it’s predictable.
> [...] it’s actually ambiguity that’s at the very heart of our legal system. It’s ambiguity that makes lawyers lawyers. Honestly, it’s ambiguity that makes people hate lawyers because it’s always possible to argue the other side, and it’s always possible to find the gray area in the law. That’s why prosecutors end up working as defense attorneys and why our regulators tend to end up working for big corporations.
IMO, as with most domains, AI _tools_ will save a huge amount of time, but it's the human specialist making judgment calls based on real world context.
It’s not just that law is ambiguous. That’s something that can be worked around. It’s that lawyering deals with human disputes and everything that comes with that. Imagine asking a couple that’s getting divorced “why are you getting divorced?” You’ll get two completely different stories with different recollections of the facts. Business disputes aren’t really any different. People have selective recollection, they don’t remember things, they shade the truth or hide things or just lie.
Oftentimes, the law is reasonably clear. The hard part is getting the facts out of the witnesses to figure out what really happened, so you have facts to apply to the law.
I suppose one way is that the Lawyers and Legal Assistants use Legal AI as a replacement for standard search. Instead of parsing content and creating new notes, let AI search and create but humans spend the same amount time instead for verifying what was created.
That way the billable hours can match, but like the article says, who does this benefit? Ultimately the transfer of time to another task will keep law just as expensive. Perhaps there is room to save time on verification vs creation. Is it worth all the investment though?
> Only three entities in the United States have anything approaching complete coverage
> They sell the editorial infrastructure built on top: headnote taxonomies that organize millions of opinions into searchable categories, practice guides written by specialists over decades, and treatises that synthesize primary law into usable guidance.
> The Free Law Project’s CourtListener provides free access to millions of federal and state court opinions, oral arguments, and PACER documents.
I think issue of a data-moat is somewhat overstated, or at least it is not argued very well here. If secondary organization and interpretation of open data is their moat, and if it is mostly focused on guiding humans through the complex web of knowledge, then AI should make short-order of that.
But, as usual, the issue of structural and organizational barriers is definitely convincing. Sometimes existing players are too entrenched to change. A new kind of AI-oriented law-firm might need to emerge and show itself to be competitive to either make mainstream firms truly change or push them out of the market.
> As AI becomes capable of producing entire work products, the profession that has spent decades treating “I reviewed it myself” as the standard of care has no framework for what happens when that review becomes economically irrational. The ethical rules assume a human at the center. The technology is moving humans to the periphery.
What horrendous morals behind this article. Why would anyone advocate for prioritizing economics and technology before ethics, especially in something as important as law?
The "won't someone think of the all the poor people with no access to legal counsel" part sounds a lot worse once you realize they actually mean "won't someone think of the money we're leaving on the table by not getting some revenue from selling cheaper AI slop, uh I mean AI legal representation, to those who can't afford anything else".
Lawyers, especially appealing to juries, require appealing to humanity. I'm sure the state will force software defense on us but it will fuck our neighbors over.
I do not understand why we do not abandon english common law and find common sense.
The LLMs are not even that good at law. I have a license agreement that I wanted to turn into General Terms and Conditions and they kept failing or rewriting the whole thing from scratch when a competent lawyer would just do a few pinpoint changes
I think the most likely situation with AI lawyers is simply Jevon's paradox. We'll simply ask for lawyer support in 1000's of more situations where we didn't before.
It's so counter-intuitive that even seasoned AI researchers get it wrong. It happened to radiologists, it's about to happen to Lawyers too [1].
Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours.
I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimented my "lawyer" on how thorough it was.
Only when a final contract was agreed on did I engage my human lawyer for final review (and usually they didn't find anything of concern).
Your future legal counterparties will thank you for using AI to draft your contracts. It's going to make lawsuits so much easier...for them.
AI is great at extremely simple contracts for which most lawyers just use standardized templates. Incidentally the same templates used to train the AI you used.
Courts are already overflowing with years of backlogs. I would argue if everyone had a legal bot to represent their interests against others according to the law, and they could come to an automatic traceable agreement, that would be an overall benefit.
However there are highly (self) regulated industries like lawyering that will try to protect their business model with tooth & nails before yielding to what's good for the population.
There's just a whole bunch of the wrong people involved. AI will replace a majority of lawyers. It is inevitable. It won't be an LLM alone that does it though.
I think legal search and intelligent document search tools are where the money is. Not "AI lawyer" stuff.
Legal document templates and generating them with given constraints existed before the LLM boom. They are accurate and predictable. Many easy and clear cases are already automated. You get a basic case, you take a template, and if the case has something specific, you add it.
I can see LLMs helping with: some paralegal work, legal searches when humans are there to judge the results, spotting and reporting errors in writing. Small modifications for templates.
The problem with the "AI lawyer" idea is that after things are written down, most of the thinking is already done. The text is the output of a hard-to-automate process involving:
* "Asking questions," being curious, and spotting things visually or by listening.
* figuring out the angle (formulating a case theory),
* identifying what is special in the case (the core anomaly),
* what the client wants (the true client objective). That's almost never what they say unless it's another corporate lawyer. You need to figure out emotional drivers, risk tolerance, and what constitutes a "win."
* what the opponent wants (adversarial motives),
* identifying ambiguities. Society is always shifting, and new ambiguities are created steadily.
A lawyer does all this and writes down their thinking. Lawyers think in writing. The legal profession has a really amazing blogosphere.
The problem with measuring AI productivity is that the people doing the actual job (paralegals, developers, etc.) are doing it for someone else (judges, managers, etc.). More work, or even a speedup does not actually benefit them. So when you give professionals a tool that speeds them up, they increase their slack and/or focus on other, less productive activities rather than work more.
The article captures this too, mentioning a couple of examples of startups where presumably this feedback loop is tighter.
I've successfully sued my neighbor over land disputes. I've won small claims against companies. I've used AI to do it. I'm no longer afraid.
Obviously I'm not going to be taking on huge law firms but AI has opened up a whole new vector for me in that I am able to sue people at will without paying for any legal fees and I think that is the most powerful outcome of all.
My days are spent now not asking what mobile apps or SaaS I need to make but who I can apply pressure to. The fact is most companies do not like to go to court as it costs them a lot of money. For me I spent about $1000/month on various LLMs for software mostly but I am amused the amount of sway I can have on companies now.
So far I've gotten free internet after suing my ISP for overcharging me, won injunctions against a neighbor over encroaching fences and trees, and now pursuing legal actions against my ex coworkers and employers in an attempt to garnish their wages.
It truly is incredible how much value one can extract from frontier models and what was out of reach due to exorbitant legal fees AI allows me to do.
My days are spent looking for ways to sue companies, employers, people to the same vigor a security vulnerability researcher would.
Please note that I've had some legal education and that its probably not for everyone and I understand if some are upset my choices.
What I always wonder is why we don't have more standardisation around end-user contracts. E.g. something equivalent to YC's SAFE (https://www.ycombinator.com/documents) but for employment agreements, leaseholds etc.
We understand what we can & can't do with software licences and creative commons because we know "this is MIT" or "that is CC, no commercial, with attribution" and we don't need to delve further.
If we had similar for employment terms - ACME Ltd want to hire me for £x at Y location using the standard "UK employee contract" - it feels like you could sidestep a lot of the need for AI parsing individual documents that are all subtly different.
Lawyers are _already_ using templates, but they're all using bespoke templates and it means that you've got ambiguity by virtue of the fact that the sentence in my contract has never been tested in court.
I've booked an appointment with a real lawyer, not going to rely on AI for anything important legal wise.
I am, however, going to be extensively using AI to prepare for the appointment. A list of questions to ask, what to bring etc. I've also used AI to research in advance what the likely answers will be, so I'll have an idea of follow up questions to ask.
That should hopefully save additional appointments (and billable hours).
A lot of the applications of Ai are going to have to go through "normal" innovation routes.
Eg low-end disruption. I have already seen "Ai lawyer" at play here.
A colleague of mine is involved in a long class action against a builder. The group chats have gone absolutely chaotic this year... as members consult heavily with LLMs and the (real) lawyer can't deal with the volume of action.
Another friend is a wholesaler and does a lot of small-scale commercial deals. Contracts have gotten bigger and negotiation has gotten more involved as "Ai lawyers" read and write these contracts.
Employment contracts are much more likely to be negotiated, referenced, etc.
So... These are all routes to "classic" disruptive innovation. It's not replacing billable hours at law firms. It is replacing non-consumption.
Law is adversarial. A formal legal letter requires a form of legal letter in response. Law generates its own demand.
I would be watching a lot more for ground up innovation, rather than adoption at firms.
32 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 41.6 ms ] threadI would expect such an article to start there, or at least make some argument that concludes that a computer actually could perform professional legal tasks. Which I don't think they can, just as they can't do philosophy.
Since law evolves, I wouldn’t be suprised that LLMs would spit out arguments that are out of date.
> But law isn’t actually code, and society and courts aren’t computers. [...] the law is not deterministic. You simply cannot take the facts of a case, the law as written, and predict the outcome of that case with any real certainty, even though the formality of the legal system makes people think it works like a computer — that it’s predictable.
> [...] it’s actually ambiguity that’s at the very heart of our legal system. It’s ambiguity that makes lawyers lawyers. Honestly, it’s ambiguity that makes people hate lawyers because it’s always possible to argue the other side, and it’s always possible to find the gray area in the law. That’s why prosecutors end up working as defense attorneys and why our regulators tend to end up working for big corporations.
https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917029/software-brain-ai-ba...
IMO, as with most domains, AI _tools_ will save a huge amount of time, but it's the human specialist making judgment calls based on real world context.
Oftentimes, the law is reasonably clear. The hard part is getting the facts out of the witnesses to figure out what really happened, so you have facts to apply to the law.
That way the billable hours can match, but like the article says, who does this benefit? Ultimately the transfer of time to another task will keep law just as expensive. Perhaps there is room to save time on verification vs creation. Is it worth all the investment though?
> They sell the editorial infrastructure built on top: headnote taxonomies that organize millions of opinions into searchable categories, practice guides written by specialists over decades, and treatises that synthesize primary law into usable guidance.
> The Free Law Project’s CourtListener provides free access to millions of federal and state court opinions, oral arguments, and PACER documents.
I think issue of a data-moat is somewhat overstated, or at least it is not argued very well here. If secondary organization and interpretation of open data is their moat, and if it is mostly focused on guiding humans through the complex web of knowledge, then AI should make short-order of that.
But, as usual, the issue of structural and organizational barriers is definitely convincing. Sometimes existing players are too entrenched to change. A new kind of AI-oriented law-firm might need to emerge and show itself to be competitive to either make mainstream firms truly change or push them out of the market.
What horrendous morals behind this article. Why would anyone advocate for prioritizing economics and technology before ethics, especially in something as important as law?
The "won't someone think of the all the poor people with no access to legal counsel" part sounds a lot worse once you realize they actually mean "won't someone think of the money we're leaving on the table by not getting some revenue from selling cheaper AI slop, uh I mean AI legal representation, to those who can't afford anything else".
I do not understand why we do not abandon english common law and find common sense.
The moment to off oneself...
It's so counter-intuitive that even seasoned AI researchers get it wrong. It happened to radiologists, it's about to happen to Lawyers too [1].
[1]:https://fortune.com/2026/05/04/godfather-of-ai-geoffrey-hint...
I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimented my "lawyer" on how thorough it was.
Only when a final contract was agreed on did I engage my human lawyer for final review (and usually they didn't find anything of concern).
For standard contracts, AI is pretty good.
AI is great at extremely simple contracts for which most lawyers just use standardized templates. Incidentally the same templates used to train the AI you used.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ba4690b-8b98-43b3-ba0b-f2ec5591a...
However there are highly (self) regulated industries like lawyering that will try to protect their business model with tooth & nails before yielding to what's good for the population.
The clients simply do not care about the multimillion dollar legal bills, since it is just a rounding error at that scale.
I find it hard to see AI being integrated at that end of the market.
Ach, it's probably a mostly human-generated piece, but any time I see the 'Not [x] but [y]' formulation, I tune out.
Legal document templates and generating them with given constraints existed before the LLM boom. They are accurate and predictable. Many easy and clear cases are already automated. You get a basic case, you take a template, and if the case has something specific, you add it.
I can see LLMs helping with: some paralegal work, legal searches when humans are there to judge the results, spotting and reporting errors in writing. Small modifications for templates.
The problem with the "AI lawyer" idea is that after things are written down, most of the thinking is already done. The text is the output of a hard-to-automate process involving:
* "Asking questions," being curious, and spotting things visually or by listening.
* figuring out the angle (formulating a case theory),
* identifying what is special in the case (the core anomaly),
* what the client wants (the true client objective). That's almost never what they say unless it's another corporate lawyer. You need to figure out emotional drivers, risk tolerance, and what constitutes a "win."
* what the opponent wants (adversarial motives),
* identifying ambiguities. Society is always shifting, and new ambiguities are created steadily.
A lawyer does all this and writes down their thinking. Lawyers think in writing. The legal profession has a really amazing blogosphere.
The article captures this too, mentioning a couple of examples of startups where presumably this feedback loop is tighter.
Obviously I'm not going to be taking on huge law firms but AI has opened up a whole new vector for me in that I am able to sue people at will without paying for any legal fees and I think that is the most powerful outcome of all.
My days are spent now not asking what mobile apps or SaaS I need to make but who I can apply pressure to. The fact is most companies do not like to go to court as it costs them a lot of money. For me I spent about $1000/month on various LLMs for software mostly but I am amused the amount of sway I can have on companies now.
So far I've gotten free internet after suing my ISP for overcharging me, won injunctions against a neighbor over encroaching fences and trees, and now pursuing legal actions against my ex coworkers and employers in an attempt to garnish their wages.
It truly is incredible how much value one can extract from frontier models and what was out of reach due to exorbitant legal fees AI allows me to do.
My days are spent looking for ways to sue companies, employers, people to the same vigor a security vulnerability researcher would.
Please note that I've had some legal education and that its probably not for everyone and I understand if some are upset my choices.
We understand what we can & can't do with software licences and creative commons because we know "this is MIT" or "that is CC, no commercial, with attribution" and we don't need to delve further.
If we had similar for employment terms - ACME Ltd want to hire me for £x at Y location using the standard "UK employee contract" - it feels like you could sidestep a lot of the need for AI parsing individual documents that are all subtly different.
Lawyers are _already_ using templates, but they're all using bespoke templates and it means that you've got ambiguity by virtue of the fact that the sentence in my contract has never been tested in court.
I am, however, going to be extensively using AI to prepare for the appointment. A list of questions to ask, what to bring etc. I've also used AI to research in advance what the likely answers will be, so I'll have an idea of follow up questions to ask.
That should hopefully save additional appointments (and billable hours).
Eg low-end disruption. I have already seen "Ai lawyer" at play here.
A colleague of mine is involved in a long class action against a builder. The group chats have gone absolutely chaotic this year... as members consult heavily with LLMs and the (real) lawyer can't deal with the volume of action.
Another friend is a wholesaler and does a lot of small-scale commercial deals. Contracts have gotten bigger and negotiation has gotten more involved as "Ai lawyers" read and write these contracts.
Employment contracts are much more likely to be negotiated, referenced, etc.
So... These are all routes to "classic" disruptive innovation. It's not replacing billable hours at law firms. It is replacing non-consumption.
Law is adversarial. A formal legal letter requires a form of legal letter in response. Law generates its own demand.
I would be watching a lot more for ground up innovation, rather than adoption at firms.