Key insights:

• • • Law firms and clients are both redesigning for AI 鈥� Both sides are rethinking how legal work gets done, including thoughts on operating models, talent, technology, and the role of automation in delivering services.

    • There鈥檚 a communication gap despite shared dependence 鈥� Even though each side鈥檚 AI choices directly affect the other, many law firms and legal departments are still planning separately, without enough transparency or coordination.

    • There are 5 critical shared questions they need to address together 鈥� Law firms and their clients need joint conversations about pricing, work allocation, trust, talent development, and wider industry standards to better shape a sustainable future together.

A law firm choosing its 2030 strategic business model without knowing how its clients are evolving is navigating blind 鈥� and vice versa.

And yet, across the legal profession, that is exactly what is happening. Law firms and corporate legal departments are each embarking on significant transformations 鈥� redesigning their operating models, reimagining their talent models, and making decisions about technology. What is striking is how often they are doing so in isolation from each other, retreating into their respective silos at precisely the moment when their futures are most deeply interconnected.

The pace of change raises the stakes. Ninety-one percent of corporate C-Suite leaders say the rise of AI will have a significant impact on their five-year business strategy. Further, AI adoption has nearly doubled across the legal sector over the past 12 months, and half of legal professionals say they expect agentic AI to be central to their workflow within two years.

Clearly, the decisions being made today about talent, technology, pricing, and relationships will lock in outcomes that are hard to reverse.

The AI view from corporate law departments

On the in-house corporate side, General Counsel are contending with broadening mandates, increasing demand and complexity, and a pace of business that shows no signs of slowing. Not surprisingly, AI is increasingly the strategic response: , up from 25% who said that last year. And for most that means AI-enabled capability to do more, faster, and at greater scale.

成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 GCO 2030 research maps out what the transformed legal department could look like 鈥� from tech-forward functions that scale routine work through automation, to seamlessly integrated teams that blend internal and external expertise, to legal departments that actively supercharge peer functions like HR and Finance.

The common thread through all of this is a shift toward strategic selectivity: Doing more with sharper focus and engaging outside counsel differently as a result.

The AI view from law firms

Among law firm leaders, AI is unavoidable 鈥� in every leadership conversation that 成人VR视频 Institute researchers held with managing partners in recent months, the issue of AI came up. For many, it is seen as a lever for growth, although law firms vary considerably in how far they have moved from consideration to execution.

In fact, our recent research points to four possible models emerging on the horizon that have AI-native disruptors built around agentic automation, elite advisory boutiques in which senior judgment is the product, integrated powerhouses that combine top-tier brand with AI-enabled delivery at scale, and those that hold back from AI adoption (although the research suggests this is a delay, not a strategy). What unites the more progressive scenarios is that strategy requires genuine commitment: A firm simply cannot pursue all models at once, and the choices made about talent, pricing, and client relationships will compound over time.

You can access the full feature article,听The 2030 legal department: 5 ways AI will transform how in-house teams work听here

The problem, of course, is that both sides are designing futures that will inevitably shape the other 鈥� yet two-thirds of GCs say they do not know how their outside firms are approaching AI, and law firms report genuine uncertainty about what their clients want. This shows a clear communication gap at the heart of the legal ecosystem, and it is opening at precisely the moment that demands coordination.

The futures being designed in those silos are not mutually exclusive. When a corporate legal department shifts its model 鈥� whether automating routine work, restructuring how it engages external counsel, or reorienting toward strategic advisory 鈥� it changes the demand profile that law firms face. When a firm repositions itself around premium complexity or agentic delivery, that changes what clients can rely on externally, and therefore what they must build internally. Each side鈥檚 choices narrow or expand the options available to the other.

Addressing 5 critical questions together

Against that backdrop, there are several questions the legal profession cannot answer from within a single organization 鈥� questions that require genuine conversation between firms and the clients they serve.

The first is the question of value and pricing 鈥� In an AI-enabled legal market, how is value defined and paid for, and can the answers be fair to both sides while still encouraging innovation? If AI dramatically accelerates the delivery of advice, does efficiency become the new floor or the new ceiling? Are clients paying for outcomes, risk reduction, speed 鈥� or some combination of all three? And which side absorbs the productivity dividend?

The second question concerns where the work lives 鈥� As both law firms and legal departments expand their AI capabilities, the traditional allocation of work between in-house and external counsel will shift. Determining what genuinely belongs in each place and why 鈥� based on, for example, risk, complexity, relationships, and strategic importance 鈥� is a conversation that requires honesty from both sides.

Third is the question of trust and transparency 鈥� How can firms and their clients build shared frameworks for disclosure, governance, and accountability around AI use in a way that strengthens relationships rather than undermines them? Without these frameworks, AI integration risks eroding the relationship foundations upon which legal advice depends.

Fourth, the talent pipeline question 鈥� As the type of routine work that historically served as the apprenticeship model for past generations of lawyers rapidly disappears, both firms and legal departments face a shared responsibility for how legal talent is trained and developed.

Fifth, and perhaps most structurally significant, is which challenges are ecosystem-wide? 鈥� Data standards, interoperability, shared risk frameworks, and ethics and assurance are not problems any single organization can resolve alone but rather, are ones that require coordinated action across firms, legal departments, technology providers, and academia.

Indeed, none of these questions can be resolved in isolation, and avoiding them does not preserve the status quo, it simply locks in poor defaults. Leadership in this moment doesn鈥檛 mean having all the answers, but it does mean being willing to ask the questions out loud, with the people who need to be in the room.

The firms and legal departments that come to these questions together, rather than arriving at the table with entrenched positions already locked in, will be better positioned to build a future that is resilient, transparent, and sustainable.

To start, pick one of the five questions above and put it on the agenda for your next client or firm meeting. Not as a negotiation, but as an open conversation worth having.

That is how the communication gap between law firms and corporate legal departments gets closed 鈥� one honest conversation at a time.

Start your legal department鈥檚 future planning using our reimagine guide from the Value Alignment Toolkit

Key insights:

• • • Unauthorized practice of law rules have repeatedly come into conflict with new forms of legal self-help 鈥� Each major wave of consumer-facing legal assistance has tested the boundaries of UPL doctrine and forced courts, regulators, and lawmakers to decide where legal information ends and legal advice begins.

    • Technology has expanded access to legal information faster than regulation has adapted 鈥� LegalZoom and other justice tech companies showed that legal tools could be delivered at scale, while UPL doctrine often struggled to accommodate new models of legal assistance designed for consumers with unmet legal needs.

    • The rise of AI makes the old UPL framework increasingly inadequate 鈥� As GenAI tools provide legal research, document assistance, and guided analysis directly to the public, regulators should move beyond the LegalZoom-era battles and consider a framework focused on consumer protection, transparency, and actual harm.

This two-part blog series examining how regulators, the legal profession, and individual litigants are looking at the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) first looks at the history of UPL and then suggests a consumer protection-based method of regulation to replace today鈥檚 supplier-based regulations.

With three-quarters of state court cases including at least one self-represented party, and with 92% of Americans with a legal problem not getting the legal help they need, it鈥檚 not surprising that the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) is a concept that鈥檚 not far from people鈥檚 minds.

It does not have to be this way, of course, and there are solutions to the thornier issues with UPL; but first, it may be helpful to understand how we got to this place and how UPL has evolved.

Legal self-help in a pre-Internet world

In the late-1800s, before UPL was formally articulated, John Wells published “Every Man His Own Lawyer”, a widely circulated guide that explained legal principles and provided practical forms. Its popularity reflected sustained public demand for accessible legal information. Around the same time, the organized bar began to emerge, along with more structured efforts to define and protect the boundaries of legal practice.

By the early-1900s, auto clubs were providing legal help to their members, demonstrating an early form of a prepaid legal services plan that exists to this day, but with typically a wider array of services. As would be the case in later years, an economic downturn soon brought a fight as lawyers used threats of UPL to fight competition. Not long after the Great Depression began, the ABA formed the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, and a wave of litigation ensued to essential end the offering from auto clubs.

Similar dynamics appeared later in the 20th century. In the 1960s, soon before the recession of the 1970s, Norman Dacey鈥檚 “How to Avoid Probate!” offered readers tools to manage estate planning without engaging a lawyer. The response included investigations and attempts to suppress the book. Courts ultimately clarified that providing general legal information, even when presented in a structured and practical format, does not constitute individualized legal advice and falls within the scope of protected speech.

Tech enters the equation

By the 1990s, these ideas had moved into a digital environment. Companies such as Nolo and Parsons Technology translated legal forms and guidance into software and the Texas State Bar sued in federal court. Although the bar initially prevailed, a legislative response introduced a software exception to UPL that remains in effect today, reflecting an early acknowledgment that technology-based tools required a different regulatory lens.

By early 2000s, LegalZoom extended these concepts at scale. By automating document creation across a wide range of legal needs, it brought structured legal tools directly to consumers in a more accessible format. While not the first provider of self-help legal resources, it demonstrated how technology could move online and operationalize these services at a national level 鈥� not surprisingly, this effort would face resistance at a whole new level.

Launched in 2001, LegalZoom argued that it just represented the modern evolution of books like those written by Wells and Dacey. The response from the legal establishment was ferocious. It began with state bar inquiries trying to understand what LegalZoom was offering, and as the Global Financial Crisis began in 2007, class action lawsuits and regulatory challenges followed.

These suits sought significant damages without alleging specific consumer harm, creating substantial pressure on a still-developing sector and signaled resistance to new models of service delivery. The objections were ostensibly about consumer protection, while more reflecting concerns about changes to established structures in the legal profession.

LegalZoom won some of the class actions and settled others on friendly terms, typically agreeing to limit the use of certain words in its advertising, paying some class member claims, offering its attorney-access plans on a complimentary basis, and paying attorneys鈥� fees.

Supreme Court precedents

Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions would prove highly important to the UPL battles. The first came in in which the Court ruled that companies could include class action waivers in arbitration provisions. Soon after, LegalZoom began implementing this type of arbitration provision to coincide with the resolution of several major class actions to make sustaining a class action against it in the future more difficult.

The second Supreme Court ruling to impact UPL came in in which the Court ruled that a state occupational licensing board cannot claim state-action antitrust immunity if a controlling number of its decision-makers are active market participants in the occupation it regulates and the state does not actively supervise the board. This decision put state bars at risk.

The fight that changed the conversation was the LegalZoom lawsuit against the North Carolina State Bar (NCSB) that was modeled after the result in the Dental Board matter. LegalZoom had built a prepaid legal services plan offering attorney access to its customers 鈥� a narrower version of what the auto clubs had offered in the past. These types of plans historically were supported by the ABA and National Association of Attorneys General, but a few states pushed back on LegalZoom offering one. Most notably, North Carolina objected and LegalZoom sued the NCSB for a declaratory judgment that it was not engaged in UPL as well as on antitrust and other grounds, leading to a settlement and cooperative legislation that cleared the way for LegalZoom to continue operations, including launching its legal plan, in that state.

Upon the case’s conclusion, University of Tennessee College of Law professor , LegalZoom fought the North Carolina Bar 鈥� and LegalZoom won. Barton opined that the 鈥淪outh Carolina [where the Supreme Court had found LegalZoom practices lawful] and North Carolina precedents will likely end all state bar action on UPL.鈥� He was largely correct, as future LegalZoom and other industry skirmishes would not amount to much, allowing the industry to thrive.

The future of UPL

Today, the LegalZoom fights look quaint. It was essentially a fight over the online equivalents to form books, when a few years later AI would explode onto the scene and upend everything. We now have everything from foundation models such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to legal specialists available to the public and generating research memos at the push of a button.

This, perhaps, brings us back to where we started. And now may be the time to ask whether a new system of regulation is needed around UPL, because no other justice tech company should have to run the gauntlet of fights that LegalZoom faced.

In the next part of this blog series, we will look at how the issues raised by UPL in the AI age may require a new regulatory solution, possibly one based on a consumer protection model that would replace today鈥檚 supplier-based regulations

Key insights:

• • • AI is supercharging old fraud schemes听鈥� By making synthetic identities, deepfake scams, and customer fraud faster, more credible, and harder to detect, AI is amplifying fraud and crime.

    • The real vulnerability may be internal silos听鈥� Institutions need to be on the lookout, because what looks like a credit loss, an HR issue, or a payment request may actually be part of a wider multi-vector AI-enabled attack.

    • Institutions already have the tools to respond听鈥� Through KYC and internal and behavioral data, financial institutions have the ability to respond to fraud threats 鈥� but only if teams connect and act together.

Fraud and crime existed long before AI, of course, but today鈥檚 technology delivers an acceleration in speed, scale, and success rate for fraudsters, resulting in billions of dollars in losses for victims. AI-enabled frauds on financial institutions by 2027 in the United States alone, and of detected fraud attempts on financial institutions use AI 鈥� and of these, 29% are successful.

To respond effectively to these threats, institutions need to implement a unified response that brings together departments that may not traditionally be partners. This cross-functional coordination should include not only the institution鈥檚 fraud and financial crime risk teams but also its credit risk, cybersecurity, and human resources functions.

And this response is critical, because today, financial institutions are being targeted by multiple types of AI-enabled attacks, including tactics such as:

• • • use of synthetic identities to circumvent know your customer/customer due diligence (KYC/CDD) controls and perpetrate fraud or launder money;
    • use of deepfake identities to gain employment, particularly by North Korean IT workers;
    • AI-enhanced 鈥淐EO frauds鈥� to deceive staff into taking unauthorized actions; and
    • Bank customers may be targeted by fraud too, presenting further risk to financial institutions.

Let鈥檚 look at these threat vectors individually:

Vector 1: Synthetic identities and KYC/CDD

Synthetic identities can be entirely fabricated or may use combinations of real and fabricated personal information to create a new identity. For example, a fraudster may construct a synthetic identity using a Social Security number exposed during a data breach combined with an AI-generated passport.

This threat is real and happening now: identifies that criminals have already used AI to successfully open accounts using falsified documents, photographs, and videos. And according to , synthetic identities were used to open as many as 3% of US bank accounts, representing millions of identities. Not surprisingly, these illicit accounts are used to commit fraud and launder the proceeds of money laundering.

Vector 2: North Korean IT workers

North Korean individuals have successfully gained employment as remote IT workers at American companies, often passing themselves off as US nationals using AI-generated face-swapping technology combined with proxy computers and false identity documents. North Korean IT workers are almost $800 million annually for the regime.

Institutions deceived into employing these workers are not only against North Korea, but they are also exposing commercially sensitive data and systems to an adversary state, increasing the possibility of theft, cyber-attacks, and extortion.

Vector 3: CEO Fraud

A 鈥淐EO fraud鈥� is a cybercrime in which an attacker impersonates an executive to deceive an employee into taking actions such as sending unauthorized wire transfers or disclosing sensitive information. AI accelerates these frauds by making them more personalized and credible.

In one of the more well-known examples, in an AI-enhanced CEO fraud in 2024 after the fraudster impersonated Arup Engineering鈥檚 CFO and requested a staff member to make several financial transfers. The criminals added credibility to the fraud by using a in which the target recognized many of their colleagues 鈥� unfortunately, all of them were deepfakes.

Vector 4: Frauds targeting customers

Where customers are targets, AI provides the scale, speed, and personalization to allow illicit actors to deliver individualized fraud. For example, whereas romance scams previously used repetitive scripts and re-used the same images of the romantic 鈥減artner,鈥� fraudsters can now use AI-generated messages, images, or videos, continuously adapting the execution of the scam to the target鈥檚 responses and behaviors.

Creating a cross-functional and unified response

The examples above demonstrate the diverse and highly sophisticated uses of AI by illicit actors, both adversary states and criminal networks. Detecting and responding to these illicit activities requires joint action between teams that may not traditionally work closely together.

For example, if an account holder fails to repay a loan, the credit team may consider it to be a default by a legitimate customer and write it off as a credit loss. However, if the account was opened using a synthetic identity, investigation may reveal other accounts that share similar customer data points or transactional patterns. This could reveal a network of accounts that are perpetrating a fraud or money-laundering scheme. To detect and respond effectively, joint action is needed between KYC/CDD on-boarding teams, financial crime investigators, and fraud and credit risk professionals.

Alternatively, for HR teams to effectively identify use of face-swapping videos during a hiring process, knowledge from the organization鈥檚 cybersecurity team, especially of deepfake indicators, would be valuable. If a North Korea IT worker is hired and only later identified, cybersecurity and sanctions teams must be involved in the response to mitigate data, network, and compliance exposures.

Detecting and responding to all illicit activities requires joint action between teams that may not traditionally work closely together.

Finally, all staff may be targeted by deepfake fraud, but those in senior positions or departments with financial authority are the most vulnerable. This means it is essential for institutions to deliver employee training using real-life case studies, 鈥渘ear misses,鈥� and scenarios drawn from across the institution and industry. This type of training will increase vigilance and minimize the likelihood of a successful attack.

For customers, financial institutions are well-positioned to identify indicators of fraud due to their extensive datasets of KYC/CDD records, transactional, and behavioral information. Institutions should enhance their customer relationships (as well as meet applicable regulatory requirements) by taking proactive measures to inform and protect their customers.

While AI has accelerated fraud and crime, financial institutions also hold valuable and relevant assets: the knowledge distributed across their cybersecurity, HR, credit risk, financial crime compliance, fraud, and KYC/CDD teams. By connecting these teams together, even in contexts in which these departments have not traditionally been partners, institutions will be well-positioned to protect both themselves and their customers from illicit actors鈥� sophisticated AI-enabled threats.

You can learn more about the fraud-fighting challenges faced by financial institutions and other organizations here

Key highlights:

• • • Curriculum听redesign must start now 鈥� One law school鈥檚 approach illustrates the necessity of mapping the entire curriculum to identify which skills to preserve, evolve, or build from scratch.

    • Training faculty in AI use is critical 鈥� Faculty AI training should be a multi-layered approach including hands-on training with specialized legal AI tools, guidance on redesigning curricula, and more.

    • AI simulations may be the key 鈥� Law school leaders need to act now by experimenting with small pilot projects and building simulation-based learning tools to replace the developmental depth that once came naturally in the first years of practice.

The debate about AI consuming most of the work that teaches essential lawyering skills to junior attorneys is forcing a reckoning with the long-held assumption that law schools were never designed to produce practice-ready lawyers and that it was always the profession’s job.

Indeed, AI is forcing that uncomfortable truth into the open faster than anyone anticipated because essential lawyering work 鈥� the document review, contract markup, research memo creation 鈥� dictated how a junior lawyer learned to spot the issue buried on page 47, to sense when a clause was off, and to develop the instinct that no classroom can fully replicate. Now, as more law firms deploy AI to handle precisely those entry-level tasks, the organic training moments that used to define the first two to three years of legal practice are evaporating.

, Executive Dean, Faculty of Law at Bond University, and Co-Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans, says he sees where this is leading. The ultimate results will be firms hiring fewer junior lawyers today because AI has taken over that entry-level work, James explains, adding that means there will simply be no pipeline of mid-level, experienced lawyers to draw from in three to five years. Indeed, this is a slow-moving crisis, already in motion, and yet to fully arrive.

This crisis lands at the center of what the AI and Future of Legal Practice (AIFLP) initiative exists to address because at the core of this crisis is what does being job-ready really means when the job itself is being redefined. Answering this question requires law schools, law firms, licensing bodies, and technologists to do something they have historically struggled to do 鈥� that is to think and act collaboratively.

Rethinking the curriculum before AI does it for you

leads IE Law School鈥檚 AI initiative and is steering the school鈥檚 efforts to embed AI across the curriculum. To do so effectively, her approach requires going back to a broader set of foundational questions in legal education such as: For what is legal education meant to prepare students? How do students learn to develop legal judgment? What makes legal advice genuinely valuable? And what skills are essential to deliver that value in an AI-enabled profession?

鈥淟ayering AI tools on top of an unchanged curriculum serves no one,鈥� Perez-Llorca explains, adding that without answers to the fundamental questions, 鈥測ou are just adding technology to a structure that was never designed to handle it.鈥�

Check out how one law school professor is building AI simulation tools

IE law school is currently mapping its entire curriculum to determine which skills need to be preserved, which need to evolve, and which need to be built from scratch, while also using the AI-boosted curriculum to train faculty. Perez-Llorca describes the school鈥檚 faculty AI training as a multi-layered approach encompassing university-wide LLM training, substantive AI law curriculum review, hands-on training with specialized legal AI tools, guidance on redesigning curricula, and assessments to reflect students’ growing AI proficiency. Before students can be taught with AI, professors need to understand the tools themselves and how to use them in teaching, in simulation, and in assessment, she adds.

An AI tutor that meets students where they are

Bond University鈥檚 James says he has spent the last several months building an AI tutor designed to walk students through course material the way a patient, attentive instructor would. His vision for the AI teaching assistant supports the professor meeting students where they are. 鈥淚t [the AI tutor] introduces the week’s topic, outlines learning outcomes, guides students through the readings, checks comprehension with short quizzes, and then adapts in real time based on how the student responds,鈥� James explains, adding that the AI tutor will pull any student who is struggling deeper into the material until the learning outcome is achieved. 鈥淭he conversation never stops until the learning does.鈥�

However, James is careful to draw a clear distinction about what the tutor replaces and what it does not, stressing that AI is a substitute for the lecture recording, the static reading list, or the passive video watched at midnight before an exam 鈥� but it chiefly exists to support the law professor. This approach frees up class time, turning it from content delivery to more meaningful the time between the human instructor and students, he adds.

Act by design or default

The approaches by both Perez-Llorca and James point to a way to address the question of disappearing tasks that teach essential lawyering skills as well as shift the center of gravity in legal education toward ways to foster developmental skills and legal judgment. Indeed, inertia is not a strategy, and law school deans and associate deans can be at the forefront of this fight by taking decisive action, including:

• • • Experiment freely 鈥� Investigate with AI on your own by starting small with a pilot project.
    • Strategically assign where AI goes 鈥� Decide where AI belongs in the curriculum, such as in courses focused on legal research and drafting as they become commoditized by AI. Also, determine in which instances AI does not belong, such as counseling clients through ambiguity, navigating ethical complexity, and advocating persuasively. Make sure these all remain led by human lawyers.
    • Focus on skills 鈥� Map your law school鈥檚 curriculum by identifying which skills need to be preserved, which skills need to evolve, and which need to be built from scratch.
    • Build AI-assisted teaching tools 鈥� Make experiential and simulation-based learning central to the curriculum.

鈥淭he choice is between dealing with this crisis by design or by default,鈥� James says, noting that the pipeline problem he described is already in motion while the practitioners, educators, technologists, and licensing bodies that need to solve this together are not yet consistently in the same room.

Watch our recent Clarity podcast to see

Key findings:

• • • Law students understand risks and opportunities of AI use 鈥� Almost three-quarters (72%) of students surveyed say they see AI literacy as essential, while an even larger portion (74%) say they also recognize the risks of over-reliance.

    • Student AI adoption is already widespread 鈥� Almost 6 in 10 law students use AI several times per week for academic work, but much of this learning is happening through self-education rather than structured teaching.

    • AI guidance in law schools remains inconsistent 鈥� Close to a majority (48%) of students report that AI policies vary by professor, and almost one-third (32%) say that their schools do not give them the AI skills needed for their future career.

There is a significant and growing divide between how law students understand artificial intelligence and how legal institutions, such as law schools, are responding to it, according to a new 成人VR视频 Institute white paper.

Jump to 鈫�

2026 Law Student Pulse Survey

The 2026 Law Student Pulse Survey, based on responses from more than 1,800 law students that were collected in April 2026, challenges two assumptions that have long dominated institutional thinking. The first is that students are reckless adopters who use AI to bypass the hard cognitive work of legal education. The second is that students are passive and uninformed consumers of a technology they do not fully grasp. The data shows that neither characterization is accurate.

In reality, 72% of responding students identify AI literacy as an essential professional skill, while 74% simultaneously acknowledge that over-reliance on AI could undermine the development of their own core legal competencies. Holding both of these positions in tandem reflects a level of professional maturity that many institutions have yet to demonstrate in their own policies and curricula.

The survey also exposes a serious institutional gap. Nearly one-third of students report that their school does not provide the AI skills needed for their future legal careers. And nearly half indicate that AI policies vary by professor, leaving students without coherent and consistent institutional guidance on what responsible AI use actually looks like.

Far-reaching consequences

The consequences of this AI-understanding gap extend well beyond the classroom. Students are entering the workforce self-taught and inconsistently prepared, at a moment when legal employers are moving quickly to embed AI fluency into their hiring and development expectations. The profession is at risk of producing graduates who are sophisticated enough to recognize the stakes but underprepared to meet them.

The full white paper outlines specific, actionable recommendations for law schools, bar associations and accreditors, and legal employers to follow to better address this gap in AI understanding.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “2026 Law Student Pulse Survey” by filling out the form below:

Key points:

• • • AI capability is jagged 鈥� Ethan Mollick’s frontier metaphor describes a coastline of strengths and weaknesses, in which a model that excels at contract analysis can fabricate a citation in the same conversation.

    • Human intelligence is jagged too 鈥� A century of psychology, from multiple intelligences to the Big Five, shows that each lawyer has their own coastline of strengths and weaknesses.

    • Person-AI fit is the next discipline 鈥� Firms that take this seriously will move from one-tool deployments to portfolios that match each lawyer to an AI partner whose jagged edges meet theirs.

Welcome back to The AI Law Professor. Last month, I examined how AI first drafts can blind us to other lines of reasoning and hijack our legal judgment. This month, I want to take up what determines whether an AI works for any given lawyer at all: Not which model is best, but which model is best for this lawyer, on this kind of work, at this point in their career

Professor and author gave us the metaphor that started this conversation 鈥� the jagged frontier of AI capability. Picture a coastline, irregular and unpredictable. On one side, the model is capable; on the other, it fails, sometimes catastrophically. The line itself does not run where you expect. Tasks that look hard turn out to be easy, and tasks that look easy turn out to be hard.

In terms of legal work, this means that a model that has just produced a useful contract analysis will confidently invent a citation. A model that has summarized a 90-page deposition with insight will fail at basic arithmetic. The capabilities of AI form a coastline, with bays and inlets and the occasional cliff. Mollick’s contribution was to give us a way to see this clearly. AI is not uniformly competent or uniformly incompetent 鈥� rather, it is jagged.

Humans are jagged too. Psychology has been telling us this for a century, although the message is uncomfortable enough that we keep flattening it back into a single number. The single-number version is IQ; yet the deeper issue with IQ is that it pretends intelligence is one-dimensional.

Developmental psychologist Howard Gardner’s , whatever its empirical limits, points us toward a more honest picture, one in which linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and kinesthetic intelligences, are each largely independent. People are not equally strong across all these dimensions. So, it follows that a great trial lawyer and a great patent lawyer are drawing on different intelligences, and each could be lost in the other’s territory.

Human intelligence, like AI capability, is jagged, and each of us has an edge. The jaggedness is not a flaw to be smoothed; rather, it鈥檚 a feature of being a unique individual.

When two jagged edges meet

Place the two coastline maps 鈥� the human and the AI model 鈥� side by side. Press them together at random and they grind, with gaps where neither side fills the space and ridges where both claim the same territory. The lawyer’s strength overlaps with the AI model’s strength, so neither is amplified. The lawyer’s weakness overlaps with the model’s weakness, so neither is covered. The pair produces less than either party would produce alone.

However, align the same two surfaces with attention to their contours and something different happens. The peaks of one fit the valleys of the other. The lawyer’s weakness is met by the model’s strength; and the model’s weakness is met by the lawyer’s strength. The pair becomes more capable than either party alone.

A law firm that takes this seriously will not deploy a single AI tool across all of its lawyers and call the rollout complete. It will offer a portfolio of models and configurations and help each lawyer find the AI partner that works with their actual mind.

Every foundational model now ships with a model card, a document describing the model’s intended uses, training data, performance characteristics, and known limitations. The cards exist because models are not interchangeable. Read three of these cards side by side and the matching question becomes clear. A cautious generalist that hedges and flags uncertainty fits a lawyer who already holds strong views and wants a partner that will test them. A citation-anchored specialist that refuses to invent cases and stays grounded in retrieval fits a lawyer in heavily regulated practice areas in which errors are catastrophic.

The matchmaking discipline

Organizational psychology has worked on a version of this problem for 50 years under the . When a person’s strengths, values, and working style align with the demands and culture of their role, performance and well-being both rise. When they misalign, performance drops and burnout follows.

The same logic applies to person-AI fit. On the human side, cognitive style, domain expertise, personality profile, and the actual tasks performed in a typical week are key. On the AI side, behavior under different prompt styles, default tone, willingness to push back, hallucination patterns, and the shape of strengths and weaknesses across the practice areas in question may matter most. Yet, law firms are still treating AI procurement as a software decision rather than a partnership decision.

A law firm that takes this seriously will not deploy a single AI tool across all of its lawyers and call the rollout complete. It will offer a portfolio of models and configurations and help each lawyer find the AI partner that works with their actual mind. The first generation of legal AI has been dominated by the question of which model is best; however, the second generation will be dominated by a different question: Not which model, but which pairing works best. Not capability, but fit.

Those lawyers that flourish with AI will not necessarily be the most technical or the most enthusiastic users. Instead, they will be the ones that found, by luck or by design, an AI partner whose jagged edges meet theirs.

When two jagged intelligences fit well together, they can accomplish more than what either 鈥� human or AI 鈥� could do alone. Today, fit is the frontier.

Tom Martin is CEO & Founder of LawDroid, Adjunct Professor at Suffolk University Law School, and author of the forthcoming

听

Key insights:

• • • Accountability, not adoption, is the central governance challenge听鈥� With many institutions using AI a variety of tasks, informal “shadow AI” use is expanding without consistent oversight.

    • Justice systems now face a parallel governance problem 鈥� They must find a way to regulate AI while using AI inside the institutions that enforce rights, while allowing responsible innovation that improves efficiency and access to justice.

    • AI needs to be integrated into broader justice reform听鈥� Without strong data governance and clear boundaries between AI assistance and legal judgment, courts risk automating inefficiency, deepening inequities, and undermining public trust.

Even as AI governance frameworks remain mired in ongoing debate, justice systems are moving ahead with implementation. Courts and dispute resolution institutions are integrating AI into their operations to more efficiently digitize records and automate workflows.

This introduces the very real challenge of parallel governance. We must now determine not only how AI should be regulated, but how it operates within the very institutions responsible for enforcing rights.

And this intersection is no longer theoretical: Does AI governance strengthen fairness, preserve independence, and expand access 鈥� or does it undermine their very foundations?

From experimentation to embedded use

Across jurisdictions, AI is often framed as an administrative tool that can handle basic tasks such as transcription, translation, case triage, and more, as well as providing analytics to identify delays or inefficiencies.

These applications respond to real constraints, such as overburdened courts, limited resources, and persistent backlogs. Similarly, dispute resolution platforms are integrating AI to guide users through processes and structure negotiations.

However, this formal adoption tells only part of the story. AI is also entering justice systems informally. Judges, clerks, and lawyers are independently using general-purpose tools in their daily work, often without guidance, oversight, or a clear grasp of the tools鈥� implications for security, confidentiality, and discoverability. As one expert observed: 鈥淪hadow AI is already happening.鈥�

The absence of governance does not prevent AI use; and, in fact, it may encourage misuse. This shadow AI simply pushes AI usage into unstructured and unmonitored areas 鈥� the risk then becomes not adoption itself, but uneven adoption that evolves beyond institutional control.

It鈥檚 no longer a question that justice systems need to engage with AI; however, that engagement has be done deliberately and in a way that allows governance frameworks to keep pace without constraining beneficial use.

While it鈥檚 no longer a question that justice systems need to engage with AI, that engagement has be done deliberately and in a way that allows governance frameworks to keep pace without constraining beneficial use.

Automating inefficiency?

Efficiency is often the entry point for AI in justice systems; but efficiency alone is not reform. And misapplied efficiency can often lead to its direct opposite: a scramble to repair broken systems or to plug technology and personnel gaps.

Many current AI initiatives remain isolated pilots 鈥� layered onto existing processes rather than integrated into broader institutional strategy. Without addressing underlying structural constraints like fragmented data, inconsistent procedures, and uneven infrastructure, AI risks automating inefficiency rather than resolving it. And without strong data governance, infrastructure, and institutional alignment, even well-designed AI tools will underperform or produce unreliable outcomes.

That means that efforts to tightly control AI deployment without addressing these foundational issues risk focusing on symptoms rather than the system itself. AI should not function as a parallel modernization effort; rather, it must align with broader justice system reform.

Clearly, the most consequential questions arise when AI tools begin to shape legal reasoning or outcomes. And while there is broad agreement that AI can support judicial work without replacing independent human judgment, in practice, however, the boundary between assistance and influence is not always clear.

Even administrative tools can shape decisions. Summaries may omit nuance, or suggested language can influence framing. Over time, reliance on system outputs can create subtle forms of dependency. In fact, this dynamic is compounded by what has been described as the myth of verification 鈥� the assumption that human oversight alone is sufficient. In reality, time constraints, cognitive bias, and limited technical fluency can make meaningful review difficult. And automation bias affects even experienced decision-makers.

Overall, these boundaries require deliberate definition. Left on their own, AI tools and their outputs will be shaped implicitly through practice rather than through principled governance.

Design determines outcome

Institutional capacity will determine how these dynamics play out because digital maturity varies widely across jurisdictions. Some courts operate advanced platforms, while others remain largely paper based. In lower-resource environments, infrastructure may not support even basic digitization. In more advanced systems, adoption may outpace governance.

Yet, one consistent challenge among all jurisdictions is reliance on external vendors. Without internal expertise, institutions risk adopting tools that meet technical requirements but fall short of rule-of-law standards, particularly in transparency, accountability, and data governance.

Justice systems are not neutral environments for technology adoption 鈥� they are the operational core of the rule of law.

Addressing this gap requires more than a procurement issue. It requires institutional literacy. Judges and administrators need a working understanding of how AI systems function, where risks arise, and how to evaluate them. Training efforts are underway, but scaling this capacity will take time. In the interim, governance gaps will persist and attempts to compensate for these gaps through overly rigid restrictions may limit adoption but do little to build the institutional capability required for effective oversight.

From adoption to accountability

Clearly, AI will not improve justice systems by default; rather its impact will be determined by institutional design, which includes clear boundaries on use, transparency around deployment, safeguards to protect independence, and mechanisms for oversight and accountability. It also requires alignment with broader justice system goals of efficiency, fairness, and accessibility.

Yet, justice systems are not neutral environments for technology adoption. They are the operational core of the rule of law. Their legitimacy depends on trust, which in turn requires accountability.

This makes the path forward not purely a technical one. It requires institutional self-assessment, alignment with human rights frameworks, and collaboration across policymakers, courts, technologists, and the public. The measure of success will not be the sophistication of the tools deployed, but whether they strengthen the system鈥檚 core functions of impartiality, accessibility, and trust.

AI tools can support those goals, of course, but only if they are designed into justice systems from the outset.

You can find other installments of听our Scaling Justice blog series here

Key insights:

• • • Consensus among AI systems is not the same as correctness 鈥� Agreement between AI models often signals shared blind spots, not truth; and AI errors can be highly correlated across instances and even across model families.

    • Productive disagreement must be explicitly designed into AI advisors 鈥� Multi鈥慳gent AI systems are most effective when they are intentionally built to preserve meaningful disagreement, not just to synthesize a unified response.

    • The future of AI advisory mirrors long鈥憇tanding human decision-making 鈥� Modern multi鈥慳gent AI design has a long historical lineage; yet, across all examples, the same principle holds: The best decision systems are engineered for internal conflict.

In this new two鈥憄art blog series, we explore why AI works best as an executive advisor not by delivering consensus answers, but by being intentionally designed to identify, preserve, and productively leverage disagreement. In the first part, we saw why a single AI advisor is structurally vulnerable; now, in this concluding part, we look at what happens when you design disagreement on purpose.

The academic evidence for multi-agent AI systems has been building rapidly, and the most important findings aren’t about the power of agreement. They’re about the danger of it.

In February, , a product that sends every query simultaneously to three frontier AI models (Claude, GPT, and Gemini) then uses a fourth chair model to synthesize a unified answer. The product’s value proposition isn’t that three models produce a better answer than one; rather, it’s that divergence between models is treated as a signal. When models converge, that indicates confidence, but when they diverge, that indicates the user should slow down.

Studies have borne this out. Multi-agent debate compared to single-model generation, and researchers at the University of G枚ttingen found that , with their voting protocols outperforming other decision structures. However, potentially the most important finding cuts against the hype. In a 2026 paper, , the authors demonstrated that AI model errors are highly correlated both within and across model families. When three instances of the same model agree, it doesn’t mean they’re right, rather it means they may share the same blind spots. Aggregation increases consensus faster than it increases truth.

The future of AI-assisted executive decision-making may look less like a single brilliant oracle and more like a room full of advisors that may often disagree because that’s how the best decisions have always been made.

This finding cuts both ways for practitioners like 成人VR视频 enterprise architect Zafar Khan and his two AI advisors, Adrian and Elara, that were built on the same underlying model but differentiated by their analytical frameworks rather than their architecture. The divergence they produce is real and visible. For example, the analysis the two AI advisors did on a deal undertaken by Eaton Corp., in particular generated genuinely different conclusions because the two advisors were oriented towards different priorities.

Yet, research suggests that same-model divergence, while effective, has a ceiling. Prompt-driven personas can ask different questions, but they share the same training, the same blind spots, and the same failure modes. Khan is candid about this, noting that his current system is in the 鈥渧ery early鈥� stages and is not a finished product. The value right now, he says, isn’t that Adrian and Elara are equivalent to truly independent minds, it’s that even a first-generation version of structured disagreement can identify insights that a single advisor would miss. It鈥檚 a large stride rather than an arrival at the ultimate destination.

The future of AI advisory is in the past

The principle behind this diverging analysis concept isn’t new. Indeed, it might be one of the oldest ideas in institutional design, rediscovered independently by many institutions that had to make decisions under uncertainty. Socrates built a philosophical method around cross-examination; Pope Sixtus V formalized opposition by creating the Devil’s Advocate in 1587; and the RAND Corporation operationalized it during the Cold War with the Delphi Method, using structured anonymous iteration to prevent groupthink.

The through-line across two millennia is simply that the best decision-making systems don’t minimize disagreement, rather, they engineer it.

Today, the developer community now uses production-grade code review tools to assign architecture, security, and functionality analysis to separate agents, using majority voting for routine decisions and unanimous consent for irreversible ones. And what Khan has built and what Perplexity, Microsoft’s Agent Framework, and a growing ecosystem of multi-agent tools are now pursuing, are the latest iterations of the simple concept: Internal conflict is not a system failure, it is a design requirement.

The question is no longer “whether”

Khan’s vision for what should sit at the decision table is specific 鈥� five AI advisors spanning technology, finance, regulation, workforce, and geopolitical risk. Each applies its own analytical framework, with the human executive responsible for integration and final judgment. The guardrails are three: i) transparency about what data the system uses; ii) verifiability that sources are legitimate; and iii) human accountability at every decision point.

“The race towards AGI [artificial general intelligence] is moving faster,” Khan acknowledges, adding that the human needs to be in the loop in order to bring AI to work in a governance fashion and an ethical way.

“I want to show the interaction between human and AI advisor, how they’re thinking through the problem together,” he explains. “Where the human judgment covers the analysis and where it diverges.” In other words, when the AI advisors agree, that’s your green light. When they diverge, that’s the conversation your board should be having.

The future of AI-assisted executive decision-making may look less like a single brilliant oracle and more like a room full of advisors that may often disagree because that’s how the best decisions have always been made. The technology to build that room now exists; however, the question is whether today鈥檚 leaders have the discipline to listen when the room argues back.

For more on AI transformation in the professional services market, you can download the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听2026 AI in Professional Services Report

Key highlights:

• • • AI simulation can replace the “repetition loop” used to train junior lawyers 鈥� AI is taking over the repetitive work junior lawyers used to learn from and replacing it with simulation-based learning.

• • • Three design pillars can determine whether AI simulations will work 鈥� The best simulation tools are built around three pillars: clear learning goals, realistic unpredictability, and specific feedback.

• • • AI simulation tools offer law students spaces to fail 鈥� For law students and junior lawyers, simulation creates a rare low-risk space to practice, make mistakes, and improve.

For decades, junior lawyers learned by doing. Assignments landed on their desks, senior lawyers marked them up, and judgment accumulated through repetition and proximity to experience. Now, as AI takes over these foundational tasks, that repetition loop is breaking down, according to , which underscores how junior lawyers are being thrust into higher-level advisory work far earlier in their careers. Unfortunately, this is occurring before they have developed the instinctive gut feel for judgement that only comes from years of experience.

and , co-founders of legal training platform , and , Executive Director at the Stanford Law School鈥檚 (liftlab) all say they see the need to build new educational programs and pedagogical tools. And these learning capabilities must be heavily focused on the specific skill sets that underlie the judgment of drafting and the judgment of taking a deposition, explains Dr. Ma.

AI and the cultivation of legal judgment

The broken repetition loop demands a substitute that underscored the implicit teaching of legal judgement in the early years of practice. Simulation-based learning is the profession’s most promising answer, and the idea predates AI.

Moot courts and mock trials have existed for years because of the stark difference between understanding something in theory and executing under pressure. Historically, however, simulation was costly as delivering experiential learning to small groups required significant expertise and time from multiple individuals. AI changes that equation by offering scalability at a level the legal profession never could access before. Indeed, role-playing is one of the greatest strengths of AI models, says Dr. Ma.

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows.

Legal judgment has always been difficult to define and nearly impossible to teach directly. Partners describe it as instinct or as something accumulated after enough transactions, depositions, and hard experience. AI simulation 鈥� if designed with enough precision to force real decision-making 鈥� can create the repetitive environments in which that judgment can be developed.

These AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: i) clear learning goals; ii) realistic unpredictability; and iii) specific feedback.

First, a rubric tied to clear learning objectives needs to be established. According to AltaClaro鈥檚 Liles, this rubric must be paired with a feedback loop that鈥檚 anchored to specific skills and expected judgment calls. AltaClaro has been offering online, simulation-based training to the Am Law 200 for almost a decade and uses AI-powered feedback in its simulation tools.

Second, realistic unpredictability needs to be built in. For example, AltaClaro’s uses a lightly scripted framework that gives the witness a fixed truth and significant freedom within it, offering a scenario with enough unpredictability to force adaptation. This non-determinism makes AI outputs difficult to control in some contexts and becomes the source of realistic pressure in a simulation. The tool currently covers commercial and employment litigation deposition simulations, and there are plans to roll out other deposition scenarios, including IP, securities, mass tort/product liability, and antitrust over the next six months.

To further enable adaptation, Dr. Ma and her team inserted personality dials into liftlab鈥檚 deposition simulation tool. Instructors can push a witness toward the extreme of forgetfulness, evasiveness, or hostility. The user must find a path through behavior that no script could have anticipated. Repetitive use of these tools allows the instinctual learning of legal judgement. Similarly, DepoSim, which uses as its underlying engine, also allows for adjustments in witness cooperation or hostility and the opposing counsel’s aggressiveness.

Finally, feedback is the third critical design pillar. Both tools evaluate the user鈥檚 performance with feedback, which can include instances in which the attorney held their ground, or in which a vague answer was allowed to slide, or when an opening to gain ground was missed entirely. Feedback of this specificity is what allows simulations to most mimic practice and transform repetition into learning.

AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: clear learning goals; realistic unpredictability; and specific feedback.

Of course, user experience is the design element that determines whether all of the above actually gets used. Shayesteh describes the range of ways the DepoSim tool is being used in practice to teach judgement. For example, one litigation chair ran the tool as a live teaching demonstration in front of 500 attorneys and paused to narrate decisions as events unfolded on screen. Also, mentor-mentee pairs are using the tool’s embedded feedback as the foundation for coaching conversations; and associates with upcoming real depositions are using the tool for targeted preparation.

AI simulations in law schools

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows. Dr. Ma says she sees simulation fitting naturally into existing experiential courses such as negotiation workshops, trial advocacy classes, and mediation seminars, serving as a between-class practice layer.

Of course, the greatest benefit of AI simulations in law schools is the creation of safe spaces for students to fail, Dr. Ma notes, describing how the law offers very few environments in which failure carries no consequences. Encountering transactions that go wrong, learning to manage impossible witnesses, and experiencing negotiations that collapse in a controlled setting are invaluable experiences for future lawyers 鈥� and now they can be experienced through simulations.

Although signs of progress are visible across the profession, resistance remains entrenched. “The profession needs to wake up and look at training as a really core strategic piece of the [learning] process,” Lilies says, adding that without intentional, rubric-based simulation infrastructure, the default is handing associates a set of AI tools and pointing them toward the work. This approach produces productivity without judgment and will result in lawyers generating AI output without a full understanding of what makes it right or wrong.

As AI tools proliferate across legal workflows, legal education needs to transform in tandem. “Law schools have to embrace this to really prepare students for the world that is three to four years away, by giving them the opportunity to increase reps and receive feedback based on a structured rubric and framework,鈥� explains Shayesteh. 鈥淚t is the best gift you can give them.”

You can find more about the

Key insights:

• • • AI is changing how lawyers develop judgment and expertise 鈥� As AI takes over more legal tasks, firms must ensure that lawyers still gain the experience, reasoning skills, and confidence needed to become excellent practitioners.

    • Law firm leaders must redesign training for an AI-enabled profession 鈥� Beyond adopting AI, law firms need intentional systems for mentorship, feedback, workflow, and evaluation so AI supports lawyer development instead of weakening it.

    • The best firms will use AI to build better lawyers, not just faster work 鈥� Long-term success will depend on whether firms use AI to strengthen human judgment, critical thinking, and client service, rather than replacing them.

For law firms looking to deliver greater value, AI taps into an obvious opportunity to enhance efficiency, accelerate work product delivery, and reduce expenses. With clients as our guiding North Star 鈥� shaping our decisions and defining our purpose 鈥� this is an opportunity that we enthusiastically embrace.

It is tempting, however, to focus only on how AI is changing the way lawyers deliver legal services as legal teams today publicize their deployment of AI tools and track utilization rates. However, firm leaders also need to ask more fundamental questions: How is AI changing the way attorneys learn? Are the assumptions that we have historically made about how we gained expertise and judgment still accurate, or were we conflating causation with correlation? Fundamentally, what does it mean to be a great lawyer, and how will law firms like ours continue to create great lawyers?

A new model for learning

Law firm leaders are facing a far deeper challenge than driving efficiency through technological adoption. We are now tasked with that produce excellent, client-centered attorneys in an environment in which many traditional development pathways are being transformed.

The core apprenticeship model for lawyer development has existed for thousands of years. The case method of formal legal education 鈥� created around 1869 by Harvard Law School Prof. Christopher Langdell 鈥� is a relatively newer phenomenon, but it is hardly new. Roughly six generations of lawyers in the United States have been on the receiving end of the same basic inputs: Case-based instruction followed by apprenticeship, grounded in repetition and increasing complexity over time.

---

It is tempting, however, to focus only on how AI is changing the way lawyers deliver legal services. However, firm leaders also need to ask more fundamental questions.

We reasonably assume that this is how one learns to think like a lawyer 鈥� and how we move talented junior lawyers from 1Ls to senior, expert practitioners. The prevailing belief is that lawyers can only learn judgment by muscling through thousands of genuine problems and through the friction that comes from making and fixing mistakes. Yet, these beliefs are largely inferential. We know how we were educated and how we practice, and we know what resulted. We have evidence about the conditions under which expertise developed, but not definitive proof of causation.

With the advent of AI, truly understanding how we make exceptional lawyers matters enormously. Much of the time-consuming work associated with lawyer development can now be completed, or at least materially assisted, by various AI tools. If these tasks were simply an inefficient use of our time, then nothing much is lost. However, if those efforts were integral to developing legal judgment, then their disappearance creates the real risk that we are weakening the very capabilities upon which our profession depends.

We are, in other words, interfering with a developmental system without understanding which component parts are essential to retain.

Leadership in an AI age

That shift reframes the role of leadership. Leaders cannot simply roll out AI tools and tout productivity gains 鈥� to do so risks losing essential developmental opportunities to gain judgment and expertise and produces lawyers that are little more than a set of hands for AI systems. Yet, ignoring the extraordinary capabilities of AI is not an option, either. Instead, leaders must become systems design architects, structuring legal work, training, and feedback in ways that preserve the conditions most likely to produce exceptional, client-centered lawyers.

To do this, leaders in which AI supplements but does not replace effortful thinking, creates opportunities for reflection and feedback, and ensures that lawyers remain active participants in reasoning rather than passive editors of machine-generated output. All the while, law firm leaders also must create environments of trust and connection, without which great legal teams cannot be built.

Clearly, AI introduces both risks and opportunities into our historical education and development models. Beautifully crafted AI work product can create the illusion of competence but may create scenarios in which lawyers fail to grasp fully the underlying reasoning. Over time, this can lead to cognitive offloading and shallow understanding.

If attorneys rely excessively on AI tools, they risk becoming mere managers of AI-generated outputs. Unless human expertise and judgment are fully integrated with the AI tools, those outputs run the risk of being homogenized. AI can also create fear for the future, a condition under which it is nearly impossible to learn, and which would reduce human engagement from which essential observational learning occurs. Without internalizing knowledge and gaining genuine expertise, future lawyers may never learn the fundamental judgment needed to solve clients鈥� most complex problems.

At the same time, AI deployed well can become . AI can play devil鈥檚 advocate, create mock negotiation simulations, identify examples created by the profession鈥檚 greatest advocates, and offer access to data sets far too large for human review. Well-trained, bespoke AI tools can also supply immediate, tailored feedback on work product 鈥� something universally seen as essential to growth but too often in short supply.

We may learn that expertise can be developed with AI-enabled tools far faster than our traditional model has suggested, given that few legal work environments have ever been able to provide feedback with the speed and frequency that AI could supply.

Indeed, we may learn that expertise can be developed with AI-enabled tools far faster than our traditional model has suggested, given that few legal work environments have ever been able to provide feedback with the speed and frequency that AI could supply. AI should be able to expand access to guidance previously limited by time, ego, and hierarchy, effectively supplementing traditional mentorship structures.

These tensions point to a central conclusion: Leaders, and not AI alone, will determine the future of the legal profession. Strong leaders will engage deeply with the question of how we create great lawyers, critically examining to gaining expertise, creativity, passion, and judgment. They will simultaneously challenge the notion that how the last six generations learned is the only way to learn, using AI as a catalyst for reconsidering how we can become even better at our craft.

The new rules of professional growth

Some design elements already seem essential. First, legal work should be performed in a manner that preserves active, deep thinking. This may impact the sequencing of when and how AI is used, and whether AI serves as a reviewer or a starting point. Second, legal education and development should emphasize the importance of critical thinking, of understanding the questions to be answered, the rule of law, and the meaning of justice. Indeed, attorneys should be judged on their work quality, not just quantity, with emphasis on sound judgment and nuanced, client-centered advice. Because you get what you measure, evaluation and compensation systems should overtly take expertise, creativity, and deep analytical skills into account.

Third, legal teams should be purposeful about developing the most human of skills 鈥� connectivity, trustworthiness, integrity, and resilience. This inevitably means spending time with other people, not just machines. Finally, organizations must maintain robust feedback loops, ensuring that human mentorship remains central even as AI tools become more prevalent.

At its core, this is a question of professional identity. The goal is not simply to produce lawyers who can use AI to deliver passable work products, but to develop lawyers whose judgment, adaptability, and commitment to client service are enhanced by new capabilities. AI has the potential to elevate the profession by enabling deeper analysis, access to greater knowledge, and more efficient, responsive service.

Law firm leaders can determine which of these futures emerge in their organizations. The pace of change is breathtaking, requiring us to move at light speed while answering truly fundamental questions. Leaders must embrace AI with optimism, but not uncritically, and build systems in which AI serves as a tool for learning and growth rather than a substitute for human development.

In the age of AI, we can continue to think like lawyers and be even better ones.

You can find out more about the challenges law firms face with