The Other Side of the Legal AI Pitch
Legal AI is usually discussed as a threat to junior lawyers and a boon for large law firms. The prevailing narrative is straightforward: firms can draft faster, review more documents, conduct research more efficiently and deliver more work with fewer people. Listen to almost any pitch from the leading legal AI providers and some version of that message soon emerges. The promise is increased output without increased headcount.
For the largest firms, it is an attractive proposition. Their economics have long depended on leverage. A relatively small number of partners sit atop large teams of associates, billing thousands of hours of legal work each year. If technology allows the same volume of work to be produced with fewer lawyers at a lower cost, profitability improves. Equally, for in-house legal departments under constant pressure to contain costs, the prospect of doing more with the same budget is difficult to ignore.
There is nothing wrong with that analysis. It is simply incomplete.
Much of the discussion has focused on what artificial intelligence might do to law firms and companies with large in-house legal teams. Less attention has been paid to what it might mean for senior lawyers themselves: those who leave by choice or circumstance, those seeking to build more rewarding practices outside the traditional model, and those looking to extend successful careers on terms that remain professionally fulfilling, financially rewarding and genuinely sustainable.
For most of the past century, the greatest advantage possessed by a large law firm was not talent. Plenty of outstanding lawyers existed outside the largest partnerships. Rather, it was infrastructure. The traditional firm's competitive advantage lay in its ability to assemble large, multi-disciplinary teams of capable lawyers and deploy them at scale. A senior partner's expertise could be extended and multiplied through dozens of associates conducting research, reviewing documents, managing due diligence exercises and producing the first drafts on which major transactions and disputes depended.
The genius of the Cravath - or more commonly the "pyramid" - model was not merely that it trained lawyers. It created leverage. An individual lawyer's time is finite. A partner supported by a substantial team can sell far more than their own hours and expertise.
That reality shaped career choices throughout the profession. Many successful senior lawyers remained within large firms not because they necessarily preferred institutional life, but because leaving meant leaving behind the infrastructure, resources and prestige that enabled them to serve clients at scale. However strong their relationships, reputations or expertise, few could realistically resource a major transaction, investigation or dispute entirely on their own.
Artificial intelligence alters that equation.
The technology does not eliminate the need for lawyers. The more sophisticated the matter, the less plausible that proposition becomes. What it does reduce is the volume of human support required around an experienced lawyer's judgement. Tasks that would previously have occupied teams of associates for days can now be completed in hours. First drafts appear almost instantly. Large volumes of material can be analysed and summarised at remarkable speed. Research that once required a junior lawyer, a database subscription and an entire afternoon can often be completed before a coffee goes cold.
The lawyer remains responsible for the advice. Judgment, experience and expertise matter as much as ever, if not more. Yet the amount of infrastructure required to support that judgment is shrinking.
That development has profound implications for a part of the market that receives far less attention.
Over the past decade, increasing numbers of senior lawyers have left traditional partnerships for revenue-share firms and platform-based models. The proposition is simple. Lawyers retain a much larger proportion of what they bill while gaining the regulatory infrastructure, insurance, compliance support and operational systems necessary to run a practice. In return, they give up the large office, the layers of management and, often, the armies of associates.
The model has always carried an obvious limitation. However experienced the lawyer, there comes a point at which a one-partner practice encounters the limits of one person's capacity. Work can only be delegated if there is someone to whom it can be delegated. Hiring a team introduces fixed costs and management responsibilities that many lawyers neither want nor can easily justify. As a result, growth has traditionally been constrained by the number of hours available to the individual practitioner.
It is precisely that constraint which AI begins to erode.
The most common assumption is that AI will allow large firms to employ fewer lawyers. That may well prove true. Yet the same technology allows smaller practices to become more capable. Matters that once required a substantial support structure can increasingly be handled by leaner teams. Specialist lawyers can take on larger mandates. Boutique firms can compete for work previously beyond their operational reach. Experienced practitioners can expand their practices without immediately expanding their cost base.
In other words, the technology is changing the economics of independence.
That is particularly relevant because the traditional advantages of large firms have been weakening for some time. Cloud-based practice management systems replaced much of the administrative infrastructure that once required substantial investment. Remote working demonstrated that legal services could be delivered without expensive city-centre real estate. Sophisticated legal technology became available on subscription rather than through large capital expenditure. AI is the latest step in the same direction. Each innovation chips away at the institutional advantages that historically kept senior lawyers inside large organisations.
The result may be a profession that looks rather different from the one many of us entered.
From my vantage point at Support Legal, I increasingly see lawyers asking a different question from the one they asked even five years ago. Previously, the concern was whether a meaningful practice could be built outside a traditional partnership structure. Today, many are asking what exactly the traditional structure continues to provide in return for the share of revenue, autonomy and flexibility it requires them to surrender.
That does not mean large firms are going away. They will continue to dominate the largest cross-border transactions, the most complex disputes and the matters requiring substantial institutional resources. Nor does it mean AI can replace the apprenticeship model on which the profession has historically depended. Indeed, one of the most important questions facing the profession is how future generations of lawyers will acquire judgment if much of the routine work through which that judgment was traditionally developed is increasingly performed by software.
Nor should anyone underestimate the risks. Hallucinations, confidentiality concerns, data security issues and regulatory obligations remain very real. Courts have already demonstrated that responsibility for AI-assisted work rests firmly with the lawyer who signs it. As it should.
Yet none of those considerations changes the broader direction of travel.
The legal AI story is typically told through the lens of efficiency. Firms become leaner. Departments become more productive. Costs fall. All of that may prove true. But a second story is unfolding alongside it. The same technology that allows large institutions to require fewer people is making it easier for experienced lawyers to build substantial practices outside them.
For more than a century, leverage was something only large firms could provide because leverage meant people. Today, an increasing proportion of that leverage comes from technology. And technology is considerably more portable.
That may turn out to be the most consequential effect of legal AI, not because it changes how lawyers work, but because it changes where they choose to work at all.
This article is provided for general information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Disclosure.
Author
Jamie Tredgold
Managing Partner of Support Legal.
Comments