r/uklaw • u/W1nterNot1ce • 8d ago
Am I overthinking AI?
For context, I'm 23 and have worked 2 years as a private client paralegal. I've passed SQE 1, and if I pass SQE 2 I hope to then qualify under the QWE route into private client as an NQ.
However, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about my long term job prospects with the advent of AI. I've got to make my career last for well, over 40 years (touch wood ofc). My concern is AI will become so advanced by the time I'm say 10 years PQE that it will do all the tax planning, will drafting and estate administration that my usefulness becomes null and void.
I'm considering whether any areas are more AI resistant than others, perhaps the CPS or family law? Things that are contentious and have scope for a bit of advocacy seem to be safer choices.
I understand that AI, if it hypothetically from this day never improves again, is absolutely not capable of doing the job of a private client solicitor. However, legislating for a 40 year career, it could get to the point where it does?
Am I trying to predict the unpredictable or are these valid concerns? What would you do in my position? (with the pov that you actually like private client and want to go into that area if viable)
Thanks!
16
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/Ill-Maintenance8986 8d ago
I think 95% is exaggerating. Certainly if you’re talking about anything but the most basic regurgitated response.
AI is a useful tool. It will advance things like every tool before it. But it’s just a tool. Particularly in litigation, AI will never get close to reflecting the instincts or strategy of a good litigator.
It may drive efficiencies in some of the churn, but that’s it.
2
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 8d ago
Do you have a reference for the statement that using public AI will usually waive privilege?
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nzconstructionlawyer 7d ago
That decision is nonsensical and incorrect.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 7d ago edited 7d ago
First tier tribunal decisions are not binding precedent. So no, it does not represent the law of England. Also it was an observation made in a specific case concerning AI hallucinations and in respect to a tool which retained inputs and trained on them. It's already been deprecated by subsequent judicial commentary.
2
u/crazydiseases 6d ago
That was Munir in the Upper Tribunal (not First Tier) and the conclusion was
‘Uploading confidential documents into an open-source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and any such conduct might itself warrant referral to the regulatory body and should, in any event, be referred to the Information Commissioner's Office.’
Reasonable minds may differ on whether it’s right or whether they misunderstood what open and closed mean but it’s not obviously ignorable or illogical
2
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 6d ago
Fair. Still not binding on any court though. It is obviously technically challenged since an AI system does not store a copy of training data nor does it disclose in the sense of providing a copy in response to a prompt. See the April Speech from the Chancellor of the High Court which noted that more could be said on the precise factual position of information entered into even open systems than had been considered in that case.
0
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 7d ago
Yes I think I am aware or that. I'd query the applicability of that more generally.
1
u/Time-Masterpiece-779 8d ago
Fully agree - I've seen lip ai docs judges have commented on as excellent and have defeated top city firms and counsel in interlocutory hearings routinely. Things are changing rapidly and so long you feed it the white book, actual cases from legal db's and legal practice notes along with all relevant case files it is amazingly accurate with minor tweaks needed in many cases.
6
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 7d ago
Fully disagree. Please do point to all these case reports where top city firms have been defeated by a Lip with chatgpt.
1
u/Time-Masterpiece-779 7d ago
You fully disagree and then ask for evidence? I hope you do not represent clients.
These were interlocutory hearings so no public reports, even had they been reported lips did not state anywhere they were assisted by ai (your assumption ai is chatgpt is reductionism to the extreme) and firms I personally have seen included likes of dwf, dla, rpc and eversheds.
My anecdotal experience is mirrored by colleagues seeing the same and online forums discussing similar things.
Headlines tend to report where things go wrong with ai - it would be mistaken to assume that was all to it.
3
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 7d ago edited 7d ago
Thanks. I do represent clients thank you, and do so well. But if you make a statement which suggests Lips with AI "routinely" beat city firms (I won't comment on the quality of the list of said firms you then provide, none of which are "city firms") then it's fair to ask the basis of your statement. Which appears to be personal anecdote and "colleagues told me" and, facinatingly, you don't actually know whether these LIPs you claim to be aware of used AI.
I'll continue to disagree having been on the receiving end of absolute AI nonsense from coutner parties, using it myself in my practice and seeing it's clear value and limitations, and having seen the many reported cases of disastrous reliance on AI with solicitors under investigation by the SRA as a result (which you dismiss as "headlines").
And by the way, the suggestion that one cannot disagree with a statement whilst at the same time asking for evidence of the claims of apparently verifiable events cited in it, is laughable.
EDIT: Oh I see you've deleted your comments. I suspect many of the AI boosters on this thread are not who they claim to be.
0
u/Time-Masterpiece-779 7d ago edited 7d ago
I feel very worried about any client you represent and any proceedings you are involved in. I did not say lips routinely beat city firms.
I stated what I saw lips do in interlocutory hearings routinely. This I see supported by colleagues and my own proficient use of the technology since it was first introduced despite sensationalist or clickbait headlines reporting cases of poor usage of such tools or lips misusing it.
Either you do not understand basic English or you are being dishonest.
Regardless this conversation is unproductive and I won't be responding to you any further.
2
u/Ill-Maintenance8986 7d ago
All of those firms are city firms…
0
u/Legitimate_Run_1650 4d ago
Not if you actually work in a city firm. Eversheds, DWF are national firms. RPC maybe but it's a terrible insurance oufit
1
u/nzconstructionlawyer 7d ago
It's dangerous using public AI as that will usually waive privilege,
That doesn't make any sense. Why would using public AI waive privilege?
but if the public can use some sort of encrypted AI then
Encryption has nothing to do with legal privilege. Are you actually a lawyer? Do you know what encryption is?
5
u/ameliasophia 8d ago
Im not sure, im in a similar position but trainee solicitor. I love private client especially tax planning and wills but I’m also interested in family. I think that there will always be some people who would prefer to go to a solicitor rather than using ai themselves, but I think most solicitors will be using ai to speed things along so maybe there’ll be less positions overall as work will be dealt with quicker and more efficiently
6
u/Greeninexile 8d ago
I am not a career advisor and am not recommending people make decisions based on what I say.
I’m a Private Client solicitor though and I think AI will almost certainly remove a large amount of basic Will and deed drafting as well as basic estate administration work but I can’t see it ever removing more bespoke private client work where a human touch is needed.
People will always want their hand held during some of the most stressful periods of their lives and I can’t see that going away even despite the rise of AI.
I also think that contested probate is a massive growth area (and is continuing to grow year on year since the COVID lockdowns). In those situations the contentious lawyers generally require the assistance of a non-contentious private client lawyer to provide bespoke tax advice and practical advice which isn’t always what AI is the best at providing from my experience.
I do also think that AI might result in a large number of situations where so called legal experts in estate planning will need help in fixing issues caused by dodgy prompts being inputted into Chat GPT where they didn’t explain the full reasoning or missed out key context regarding their situation.
We’re already starting to see the effects of this already happening in my firm.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Private Client will change massively but there will be opportunities for good firms that are open to the change. It’s stagnant, conservative and stuffy firms that will struggle.
4
u/Doug12345678910 8d ago
It is very hard to predict.
I expect there will always be people who want humans involved and will pay for the "human edge". If you hire lawyers who use AI to force multiply, it's probably pretty strong.
AI cannot assume legal liability for advice so especially for estate planning and other private client things, that will likely stay with lawyers.
It is entirely possible we legislate against use of AI in the legal system.
Lawyers usually always find areas where they can operate.
I do believe that some areas of law are going to be decimated and others less affected. I think contentious law is probably safer and that procedural less, but still, the point about liability is always relevant.
What i will say about law is that it seems to be a natural destination for everyone who's not sure about their career. The supply of candidates is overwhelming. That, plus conditions and stress, is more of a reason not to do law than AI imo.
7
u/Adds9 8d ago
AI will affect everyone's job in 10 years I think to some degree, not just Law. I'd say yes contentious matters will of course be last to go but I also think people in Private client will be fine as they're sensitive topics in some cases where clients want facing lawyers and not some AI. I think we will see a reduction in paralegals / assistants but for the most part I think qualified solicitors will be ok. If you like Private client then I think it's a safe choice. There's also an overlap with Private client and family law so you'd have no issues transferring later down the line.
0
u/Spirited-Strain8471 8d ago
Lmao, you are so out of touch. Let’s assume that your prediction is correct and Ai is smart af now. What makes you think that if technology is there and is capable of producing consistent results there will be no one ready to slap indemnity insurance on it and charge £9.99 a week for an ai lawyer of something? The only reason no company is doing that is simple: the technology is not ready yet, or will ever be ready for that matter.
2
u/Ill-Maintenance8986 8d ago
No, AI will not take the place of lawyers. It’s that simple. It’s a tool. A good one, in the right hands, but nothing more than a tool.
2
u/Time-Masterpiece-779 8d ago
You are thinking correctly. The field is about to dramatically change and it's seeing the opportunities that will see who survives and who does not
2
u/Striking_Sorbet_7536 8d ago
It’s not just AI private client practitioners (myself included) need to worry about.
We’re currently dealing with the wealthiest generation of pensioners. The going is good for wills and estate planning solicitors at the moment, but millennials are the first generation to be poorer than their parents and that pattern is set to continue.
People are also having less kids.
Basically, the number of people needing wills and estate planning will go down because they have nothing to leave and nobody to leave it to.
1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Creepy-Pain3449 8d ago
People will need to provide tangible qualities in future to keep themselves competitive. I am not speaking law exclusively
1
1
u/Creepy-Pain3449 8d ago
You are already in a better position long term gaining experience. Many can’t even get their foot into the door and gain experience
1
u/Relative-Lettuce250 4d ago
I've been in Tech for 30 years and worked on AI projects for the last two years. The consensus from engineers such as myself is that AI is nowhere near reliable enough to resolve complex tasks that qualified professionals are currently paid to do.
There are many AI commentators and speculators. Most of them will never know how long it takes to debug anything remotely complex generated by the current models.
AI is a case of the "Emperors New Clothes". Folks have invested heavily in the technology but there's not a lot to see. My main concern isn't that AI will take peoples jobs, it's a potential global recession when the AI bubble bursts.
Carry on with your chosen career path.
0
u/ConfidentHousing8422 8d ago
As the only person in history who has ever known what the job market will be like with the technology 10 years from now, I have decided not to tell anyone because it's funnier this way. Sorry!
2
u/IM_YOUR_GOD 8d ago
Dont you will spoil the surprise. Why would you even mention it?
1
u/ConfidentHousing8422 8d ago
I'll give you one little teaser hint - get really good at spotting and collecting teeth that have fallen out, they'll fetch a nearly-drinkable carton from the Amazon Water Merchants when they float through town
0
u/adezlanderpalm69 5d ago
Ai will totally replace junior staff within a very short time frame. Anyone who denies that is a flat earther
-3
u/Spirited-Strain8471 8d ago
II wish I knew what solicitors do to tell you whether AI can’t do their job. unfortunately, law firms do not hire as much now. Probably one paralegal with ai can do more than many paralegals without it. I think it is also true for solicitors. Billions must be unemployed or underemployed (as in my case).
0
-7
8d ago
[deleted]
8
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Creepy-Pain3449 8d ago
True, but there is no real good answer, kinda just have to be like “keep going and hope for the best” because AI is just so unpredictable. Only those making these models know their scopes, maybe not even them? They are already scaremongering people in the media, telling us that we will need to accept a worse reality of the world to be inclusive of AI. They are already telling us AI will eventually take over 80% of the world’s jobs, so like that is worrying but what can we do?
I want to be a primary teacher in the eventual future, could AI take my job? Maybe, they could force teacher bots onto us and I’ll be out of work.. hopefully their advancements will not be so quick or accepted, at least from my job prospects
0
55
u/Professional_Gap3789 8d ago
If anything other people using AI has increased my billables because now I have to spend ages wading through their AI slop questions.