// Even though no one actually thinks ChatGPT will replace attorneys any time soon, the underlying technology will ultimately have a substantial impact on the practice of law. It’s a tool that will speed up workflows, but it’s still a tool and not a replacement. Online legal research didn’t replace the need for lawyers to evaluate the cases those algorithms spit out, and AI-based legal tools aren’t going to replace humans making the final call on any decisions (unless you’re lazy).

In other words, whatever technologies emerge from the AI revolution, lawyers will always have to learn to be lawyers first.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

But some law schools seem inordinately fixated on AI right now. Which seems a lot like a 19th century futurist hearing about the internal combustion engine and trying to train people to ride mechanical horses.

High schools might freak out over ChatGPT essays, but hopefully law school success would demand higher order analysis than today’s tools can muster. Just craft questions that AI can’t answer except in the most superficial manner and let the curve fall where it may!

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); });

In fairness to the original poster’s school, that seems to be the goal there too. But why freak out like this either way?

I get that GPT-4 can pass the bar exam, but that’s more of a knock on the bar exam not a reason to think algorithms can earn a law degree. Someone cheating with an AI bot isn’t going to make the grade. But also to the extent teaching efficient and ethical applications of this technology seems waaaaaay premature. It’s impossible to say what the generative AI-driven practice will even look like yet, let alone teach future lawyers how to leverage it responsibly.

At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, stick to the fundamentals. The core ethical questions haven’t changed — attorneys well-schooled in their obligations are going to do just as fine with some algorithm as they did with online research as their predecessors did with Shepardizing as their predecessors did with… whatever lawyers did before books.

Let AI come to the professionals, don’t try to mold the professionals to fit AI.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

AI Legal Beat, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Law Schools, Technology