There's been a lot of talk lately about how law firms are using AI. I've been critical of some aspects of AI, and a few people have taken that to mean I'm against AI.
I'm not.
I've heard the same thing about marketing. Because I've criticized certain marketing efforts, people assume I'm against marketing. I'm not against that either.
My problem isn't the tool. It's how it is used and what people use the tool to replace.
Marketing can amplify great work, but it can't replace it. A firm that puts more effort into how it looks than into how it practices will eventually let its clients down.
AI works the same way. Used well, it can make lawyers faster and more efficient, and help them give clients better service. I'm all for that.
The problem starts when lawyers give up their responsibility. AI output gets rubber-stamped and sent out the door with no review and no judgment.
That hurts the client first. They're paying for a lawyer's judgment, not a first draft from software.
It also hurts the firm. If your work product is just whatever the AI produces, what are you really offering? Those same tools are publicly available. Your competitors can subscribe. So can your clients.
The value is judgment. The value is experience. The value is standing behind the work.
Use AI. Use every tool that helps you serve people better.
Just don't abdicate your responsibility to do the job you were hired to do.
Do you agree? Join this and other conversations with me on LinkedIn here.
