Extract from Krishnan Nair’s article “When Clients Learn to Love AI”
History has shown how our trust in technology, whether wise or misplaced, has developed in a deeply complicated but appreciable way. This happens over years through repeat use that, sometimes grudgingly, grows into reliance—a close relative of trust. Already we hear of examples of clients turning first to AI to answer initial questions, or to refine questions for expensive lawyers. Others want to trim the expense of a Big Law firm but still want the fear factor in litigation or the deal gravitas that Big Law branding brings—AI can offer shortcuts. At the very least, what this shows is that non-human entities are, at least in the first instance, satisfying the very human appetite for answers.
But client demand for legal services is driven by more than just a desire for answers and certainty. Clients want someone who can share, or better yet, shoulder entirely, the burden of ultimate responsibility. And, as things are, this you cannot automate.
As it stands, AI cannot bear liability. The relationship between human lawyer and client is, at its heart, a quid pro quo arrangement. A client loses a case, or falters in a transaction, and the lawyer stands to lose the mandate, the client or, worse yet, reputational value, which is the currency of Big Law. Spelled out, it’s an odd thing that in its essence, what a lawyer is in the worst cases is someone to blame—a means for outsourcing accountability. A lucrative business indeed.
