> It is a little self-serving to say "Yep, this is possible and we are the ones doing it." Fair enough. :) Though I tried to be a little more nuanced than that

> It is a little self-serving to say "Yep, this is possible and we are the ones doing it." Fair enough. :) Though I tried to be a little more nuanced than that. To be clear, I don't think AI will replace lawyers any time soon. It's just making them more efficient. Our customers are layers, not people looking for legal services. > Excel didn't replace the Accountant. Great analogy. We don't think AI is going to replace lawyers any time soon, but it will make them more efficient (and potentially eliminate some of the lower-tier staff, like what technology has done to pure "bookkeepers.") > I think it is more than just the interactions with clients or making them "feel good." Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I do think lawyers still provide a lot of value which AI can't easily replace. There's a reason we didn't have an AI write our equity plan. > I think the traditional structure of the firm serves many more purposes than just specifying a hierarchy for task assignment. That might be true, but remember that associates are expensive. If the budget for them has pressure applied on it and with AI you can get away with 1 associate instead of 5, that's going to change the legal track substantially.