Is AI a Career Threat or a Competitive Edge for Attorneys?

Los Angeles Times

15 hours ago

Why Lawyers and Firms are Racing to Become Tech Experts
As artificial intelligence promises to reshape the legal profession, much of the conversation centers on which jobs will disappear. But attorneys looking to secure their future may need to flip the script: Rather than viewing AI as a threat, successful lawyers are becoming subject matter experts in the technology itself.
'To be effective counselors, attorneys working at the forefront of innovation need to understand the relevant technology at a deep level,' said Zachary M. Briers, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP focusing on complex technology and intellectual property issues.
'When it comes to technology companies, almost all difficult legal issues turn on granular distinctions in technological advancements. This is particularly true with new platform technologies, such as AI, which defy conventional legal analyses,' Briers added.
This need will only increase as litigation around artificial intelligence becomes more complex, according to Nathaniel L. Bach, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
'The more a lawsuit or advice implicates the inner workings of an AI model, the more attorneys will need to know to properly advise clients, ask the right questions of adversaries, and explain the technology to courts in both accurate and persuasive ways,' said Bach.
Having more than 'a surface-level understanding' of AI may even be a matter of professional competence, said Daniel B. Garrie, a mediator, arbitrator and special master with JAMS, an alternative dispute resolution provider. He is also a founder and partner of Law & Forensics, a legal engineering firm.
'Lawyers are ethically obligated to stay abreast of technological advancements under the ABA's Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8,' said Garrie.
'A deeper comprehension of how AI systems function, including their design, data dependencies, and operational limitations, is crucial for providing competent advice, particularly in areas like eDiscovery, data privacy and intellectual property disputes,' he continued.
Beyond helping to win cases and complying with ethical obligations, understanding AI could be a major career booster. David Lisson, the head of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP's GenAI litigation initiative, said that the AI space represented a big opportunity for attorneys at the start of their career - a way to stand out from the pack. 'I always think the key to a successful junior associate is being an expert in something. And this is an area that you can really dig into,' he said.
'If you come and figure out what this model is doing and how it's doing it, you'll be the one that the senior attorney comes to, right? And you'll be the one that the client comes to because you're the one that understands what's actually going on.'
From a branding perspective, at least, firms appear to understand the value in highlighting the AI credentials of their attorneys. Over the past two years, a flurry of AI practice groups has emerged in California and elsewhere. But experts, including those who head up these groups, acknowledge that this strategy will need to evolve.
'This trend has begun and will continue, but these groups will almost certainly evolve to be increasingly specialized over time, as it becomes clear that 'AI' is far too broad a category to usefully define a practice,' Keith Enright, cochair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's Artificial Intelligence Practice Group said.
Bach said that AI practice groups were both 'a necessity and a calling card' for many firms. To be effective, these groups would need to encompass practice areas spanning intellectual property, privacy and technology.
'The AI space is too big and moves too fast for any one lawyer to know everything,' he said.
That's a sentiment shared by Peter H. Werner, co-chair of Cooley LLP's global emerging companies and venture capital practice group.
He said that the recent emergence of AI practice groups was 'similar to having an 'internet' practice group in the 1990s.'
'Some firms are forming 'AI practice groups' to signal to the market that they're focused on AI-related things. But the ubiquity of AI and related technologies will mean that the work that is done in every practice will be impacted by AI,' he said.
He added that Cooley instead has 'an interdisciplinary, interdepartmental internal task force that's intended to be a clearinghouse to coordinate our work on AI-related matters, many of which implicate multiple practices.'
Briers said that while 'most major firms now have a practice group that is dedicated to AI-related issues,' it was 'not enough that a few attorneys at each firm become familiar with this disruptive technology. It needs to be a firm-wide initiative.'
Attorneys who wish to become AI-literate have options. Law schools appear attuned to the fact that there will be an increasing demand for such knowledge.
A 2024 survey from the American Bar Association found that more than half of respondent schools now offer classes on AI. Many of these initial efforts focus on introducing students to the appropriate and ethical use of AI tools in their practice.
However, some go further: UC Berkeley, for example, will begin offering a specialization in AI law and regulation this summer as part of its executive track LLM program, including a unit on the fundamentals of AI technology. The curriculum for the new certificate was designed in consultation with an advisory group of industry leaders, including representatives from Anthropic and Meta.
Other schools are offering shorter standalone graduate certificates or programs in artificial intelligence for legal practitioners, including USC Gould School of Law and Harvard Law School.
Beyond these programs, attorneys with an existing science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) background might be at an advantage to their colleagues in an AI world, though legal experts disagree on the significance of this.
'The shift to AI is indeed an opportunity for attorneys with a background in computer science, data science, or engineering areas to gain a distinct advantage in understanding the nuances of AI-related legal challenges,' Garrie said.
'As AI legal work often intersects with technical fields like cybersecurity, data analytics and software licensing, firms may increasingly value and recruit legal talent with such dual credentials. This intersectional expertise enhances both client trust and legal efficacy,' he added.
Clinton Ehrlich, a partner at Trial Lawyers for Justice who is a member of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Artificial Intelligence Committee and has a computer science background, said lawyers working on AI cases or issues was analogous to lawyers working in the patent space, where many attorneys have a STEM background.
'This is an area of the law where skills are required beyond those that most generalists have,' Ehrlich said.
'It doesn't mean that a generalist couldn't be involved on a team that's litigating a case involving questions about AI, but I think it's very important to have at least one team member with really deep domain knowledge of how these systems work, so that you aren't just translating everything through the medium of popular science,' he said.
Others were more circumspect, emphasizing that a willingness to learn and engage was far more important than prior education experience.
Werner said that attorneys 'don't necessarily need a technical degree for most things, but you need curiosity. The best lawyers are quick studies. We work with cutting edge technology and life sciences companies, using complex methodologies to do complicated things.'
He predicted that as the law and technology become increasingly intertwined, we could witness 'hybrid teams of people at firms that include lawyers and technologists that collectively pitch for and deliver service to clients – think e-discovery on steroids.'
According to Enright, 'Intellectual fluidity and the ability to frame questions effectively will be vastly more valuable than a STEM background.'
Vivek Mohan, the other co-chair of Gibson Dunn's artificial intelligence practice, said that whenever he talks to law students and recent graduates interested in the practice area, he tells them, 'I look for ongoing, demonstrated interest. Certainly, an undergraduate degree in a related area is a strong signal of interest.'
But he cautioned that an attorney's role is 'not to substitute ourselves for the engineers or AI researchers at our companies. It is to listen carefully, ask probing questions and then provide the best legal advice we can.'
He added that attorneys interested in AI should get comfortable with occasionally not knowing what is going on with AI models, given even their engineers are not always able to explain how a model reached a particular answer.
'Learn what you can, but you have to be able to get comfortable with operating in an environment that carries a certain degree of uncertainty,' he advised.
The other risk of overemphasizing prior education? Instilling a sense that technological stasis is acceptable, said Briers.
'An engineering background might be helpful in understanding these new technologies, but it's not necessary. In my experience, too many attorneys who lack a STEM background use it as an excuse to not learn new technological skills. They do so to the detriment of their clients' interests,' he said.
The Los Angeles/San Francisco Daily Journal is a publication for lawyers practicing in California, featuring updates on the courts, regulatory changes, the State Bar and the legal community at large.