(Image via Getty)
Sometimes I think that it was just yesterday that I started law school, took the bar, was sworn in, and started off on what has been a career filled with twists and turns, some of which I wanted, some of which I did not. That’s probably true for most of us.
There have been so many advances in the profession (and yes, I am going to continue to call it that until I am taking a dirt nap and probably even after that). One of the things that does hearten me, at least a little, is the awakening, albeit too gradual, to the acknowledgement and existence of mental health issues within our midst. The stigma still exists, but slowly, there are little cracks in our armor of invincibility and those cracks couldn’t come a moment too soon. They are way too late to save many lawyers who haved died by suicide over the past years, but hopefully these cracks that now reveal themselves can help save the lives of lawyers who are in distress and law students as well.
You can have all the legal tech you want, you can have all the gadgets and accoutrements that we think are important to our work and present the right “image,” whatever that may be, but if the new emphasis on lawyer mental health is indeed here for good and not just a passing fad, then saving even one life that would have previously been lost is a hopeful sign and a positive one for us.
You can’t start too early to develop an equilibrium, a sense of balance about yourself, your career, your life. Having a sense of humor about the ridiculousness of life’s situations can only help.
Many of us still have to reconcile ourselves that legal technology is here to stay, for better or worse, and that alternative methods of providing legal services are also here to stay.
One example: will we see an increase in the use of licensed legal technicians to close the access to justice gap? Washington State has licensed legal techs in domestic relations and apparently is looking at licensing other areas in the future. New Mexico is looking at the issue, while Utah allows licensed paralegal practitioners to help clients in family law, landlord tenant, and some debt collection matters.
For those considering law school and doing a cost benefit analysis, it’s entirely possible that some future lawyers may take this alternative path if the goal is to help with “people law” problems. Saddled with less debt, or none at all, licensed legal techs may well be more cost efficient, but at what cost to the lawyers who have traditionally practiced in those “bread and butter” areas?
Will there still be value in the law school education? Some lawyers have felt, and I don’t disagree, that the vast majority of their work has been shuffling papers back and forth. What will be the difference between lawyers and licensed legal techs except for the debt load and the ability to try cases, which few lawyers ever actually get to do?
The State Bar of California, while not necessarily dragging its heels, although reasonable people could differ about that, has given itself until December 31, 2020 to “…explore options to increase access through licensing of paraprofessionals, limited license legal technicians, and other paraprofessionals.” It’s Goal Four of the Bar’s updated strategic plan.
Now there’s the possibility that artificial intelligence will not only take your job, but be your boss. Oy. We already complain about bad bosses now. How would HR handle complaints against AI bosses?
Will AI understand the concept of “take this job and shove it?” Evaluating performance will be even more of a number game than it already is. (Not enough hours billed, insufficient collections… that’s nothing new.) How would AI evaluate the non-quantifiable aspects of practicing law, the soft skills? The satisfied client, the good result that is not reflected in the numbers, the interpersonal skills that a lawyer has that lead to attracting and retaining clients? How do you “optimize humanity”? How would you even try to do it in the context of legal practice? Would there be algorithms for that? How would an algorithm model behavior for a young associate who needs coaching and mentoring? Would an algorithm receive performance bonuses? And how would an algorithm spend that bonus money? And where? And on what?
As lawyers, we push back, we challenge the status quo, we don’t just accept what is purportedly a “given.” How would we interact with a boss, whether managing partner, chief legal officer, or any other title that confers management responsibilities, who is truly non-human, and may even be “inhumane” to boot?
Will relationships matter any more? How will AI evaluate an in-house counsel who doesn’t have billable hours to meet?
The technological revolution changing legal practice is a good thing if it makes justice more affordable for everyone. We see AI all around us, and we know it’s here to stay.
But substituting algorithms for the human touch robs us of the very personal nature of the practice of law.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.