A significant problem raised by the growth of generative AI technologies is the impact of these pending changes on the development and training of new lawyers
The development of lawyers typically involves three phases: i) learning to think like a lawyer; ii) learning to act like a lawyer; and iii) learning to actually be a lawyer. Law school curriculum typically covers the first two phases through coursework and clinical experiences; however, the third phase doesn’t typically happen until a lawyer is actually in practice. Even lawyers who participate in clerkships or summer programs don’t necessarily gain exposure to the full spectrum of what actually being a lawyer involves until it is their full-time, daily reality.
Historically, much of that third phase of learning involves relatively low-stakes and potentially dreary tasks, which have, nevertheless, become important teaching tools as fledgling lawyers grow into their new professional identities. Today, however, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies pose a potential threat to this developmental model by fundamentally altering the types of work lawyers actually do.
The automation of routine tasks historically performed by first- and second-year associates results in a gap within the traditional talent pipeline, seriously challenging law firms’ conventional training models. After all, how are firms supposed to bring up senior associates if the work that traditionally transformed younger associates into more senior lawyers has been automated away?
This conundrum is not unique to the legal sector nor other professional services. Indeed, several insights can be gleaned from the engineering profession’s own history with technological automation and how it forced changes to a centuries-old training structure.
The extinction of the draftsmen
Up until the end of the 20th century, draftsmen played a pivotal role in the engineering world as a necessary stepping-stone to the higher role of experienced engineers. These skilled individuals were responsible for translating engineers’ concepts and designs into precise technical drawings, which served as the blueprints for manufacturing and construction. Draftsmen had to meticulously hand-draw every detail, ensuring accuracy and clarity in their work without the aid of any computers.
Generative artificial intelligence technologies pose a potential threat to this developmental model by fundamentally altering the types of work lawyers actually do.
The typical career progression in engineering firms followed a clear path that many lawyers may find familiar: individuals would start as draftsmen, mastering the exacting intricacies of detailed drawing and design work. Over time, as they gained experience and honed their skills, they would advance to the position of designer. Designers held a more senior role, involving greater responsibilities such as conceptualizing and developing new products, systems, or structures. The transition from draftsman to designer was a gradual process, facilitated by years of hands-on drafting experience, which provided a solid foundation for more complex design tasks.
However, with the rise of computer-aided drafting (CAD) technology, which proliferated in the late 1970s and early ‘80s, the landscape of the engineering profession underwent a dramatic transformation. CAD systems automated many of the tasks traditionally performed by draftsmen, enabling engineers and designers to create, modify, and optimize designs with unprecedented speed and precision. This technological advancement rendered the role of the draftsman effectively extinct, as the need for manual drafting diminished.
The elimination of the draftsman role created a significant challenge for engineering firms. Without the traditional scut work of drafting to train new designers, firms could no longer rely on the progressive advancement that had been the method du jour of training designers for more than a century. Their traditional talent ladder with which they created more experienced designers had been shattered.
How did engineering firms adapt?
The solution to the extinction of their draftsman class that engineering firms eventually developed involved taking a muti-faceted approach which began with throwing new engineers into the deep end. Young engineers fresh out of college or trade school would go straight to the designer role, working on the advanced design processes right away rather than toiling for years on the traditional drafting tasks.
This approach, however, required a significant change in the training model, necessitating greater mentorship and supervision to ensure that new engineers acquired the skills and experience they needed to handle the complexities of their new roles. These fresh designers were, after all, working on projects that would traditionally have been years beyond their level of preparation, meaning the only way to ensure their proper completion was for more experienced hands to take a greater role in the young engineers’ training and supervision.
Legal training evolution will also require discussions with law schools about the new skills that lawyers entering the profession will need to succeed.
The benefits, however, dramatically outweighed the costs as senior designers had more time to invest because of their own automated assets, and inexperienced designers came online at a faster rate.
At the same time, engineering firms worked with educational institutions to rebuild the instructive structure of upcoming engineers, focusing less on drafting skills and more on technological education that was seen as essential for running CAD systems proficiently. Also, firms and schools placed greater emphasis on the more advanced engineering and design skills that the modern designer role demanded, emphasizing the importance of developing expertise in using sophisticated design software and understanding complex engineering principles from the outset.
In this way, engineering firms ensured that their new hires were not only capable of performing the high-level tasks required in modern engineering but also were well-supported as they transitioned into their new role — one which traditionally would have taken additional years of experience to reach.
Conclusion
The legal professional has already experienced some of the changes expected from AI-driven technologies, such as with digital research and cite-checking, albeit on a much smaller scale. Yet with those change being turbo-charged by impact of GenAI, dramatically changing traditional training models will be a significant undertaking for law firms, particularly if such changes require more involvement of partners and other senior lawyers, especially around mentoring and supervising the work of new lawyers. And similar to what occurred with engineering, this legal training evolution will also require discussions with law schools about the new skills that lawyers entering the profession will need to succeed.
All of this change will require law firms themselves to embrace a mindset of flexibility, understanding, and cooperation if they are to create for themselves the future senior lawyers and ultimate partners they desperately need.
You can find more of the challenges law firms face in hiring and retaining top talent here
