"Claims that AI can "replace" lawyers are deeply unserious. Years into the AI hype cycle, the hallucinations continue to mount, the agents continue to fail at unacceptable rates, and former AI evangelists are acknowledging that they overestimated the technology. Whenever you see someone writing about how "thinking" AI is here, remember the industry is paying influencers upwards of half a million dollars to convince their audiences to use AI. As one AI industry insider put it, " Revolutions don't need promo codes.""
"When the dust settled, staffing costs were down 27 percent and profits were up. All while billing fewer hours. How does that work? [Managing Partner] Katy [Young] acknowledges the counterintuitive economics: "It used to take two days to draft a complaint, now it takes me two and a half hours. So immediately, yes, there is an impact on my billing- I'm billing two and a half hours instead of eight hours.""
Claims that AI can fully replace lawyers are unreliable as hallucinations, agent failures, and overestimation of capabilities persist while the industry funds promotional influence. A six-lawyer San Francisco firm chose not to replace a departing associate and instead implemented AI to support remaining staff. After adoption, staffing costs decreased by 27 percent, profits increased, and the firm billed fewer hours. Faster drafting reduced client costs, enabling access for small and medium-sized clients, increased referrals, and allowed the firm to accept smaller matters that a human-only engagement would not economically justify.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]