Larry, a seasoned corporate lawyer, checks the emails on his phone first thing in the
morning. In his inbox, he sees an email from Aaron, a client he’s done some work for every year. Aaron’s email attaches a service contract, clearly drafted by artificial intelligence, with the subject header: “Can you review it quickly before we send it off?” Larry marks the email as unread and checks the next one.
This new email is from another client: Barry. Larry had sent Barry a carefully drafted shareholder agreement for review yesterday and Barry’s email contains a laundry list of points, criticisms and scenarios also drafted by AI. Some of these concerns are legitimate, some irrelevant to Barry’s situation, and some considered but not included in the agreement for strategic purposes.
Before answering his emails, Larry receives an email from Charlie, a third client. This one has a high importance distinction, is written in ALL CAPS and his billing department his copied. Charlie is complaining about Larry’s most recent invoice: why is Larry billing three hours for drafting an estate plan that Charlie was able to replicate with AI in five minutes?
Larry signs and gets to work.
***
Today, AI has created a perception among potential clients that legal work is now faster, cheaper and simpler to produce than ever before. To some extent this is true, and it has been true ever since legal research and forms have moved from books to online subscriptions. But whereas previous legal software subscriptions were too expensive for the public or simply not comprehensive or comprehensible for the average layperson, current AI subscriptions are cheaper (or free) and provide
easy explanations to their users. The result of this is a larger number of unsophisticated clients questioning a lawyer’s value and service. What is ultimately happening is that the perception that AI is creating is breaching the inherent trust between lawyer and client. This broken trust is manifesting itself in the familiar scenarios above.
Technology tends to do this across professions. “Dr. Google” has made clients question their physicians; do-it-yourself videos make clients question their contractors. Having clients question more educated and experienced figures is a good thing — lawyers especially need to ensure they are servicing their clients correctly rather than going through the motions for a high billing rate. And
some clients can use AI effectively, much like how sophisticated clients can question lawyers effectively as well to ensure they are achieving their goals.
As a lawyer, it’s important to regain the trust of the client by providing value beyond the drafting of documents. This means providing quality service: proper explanations of your work and why it’s important, asking for proper context and providing strategy. After all, AI only responds to a client’s input or “prompts”; the wrong prompt provides the wrong answer. If you ask about “life, the universe and everything” and the answer is “42” (Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, was ahead of his time), it will be correct but absurd because the question is wrong. The lawyer must be the one to know what to ask, interpret the output and then take accountability for the advice.
Lawyers should be spending time having frank conversations wit clients, acknowledging what AI can do (even within their own practice) and what their billing and thoughts reflect.
In the case of Aaron, Larry should tell him that if he wants proper protections, he should engage with the process of drafting a reusable contract or assume the risk. In the case of Barry, Larry should actually engage with all of AI’s comments even if it is with AI and to do so on a phone call to avoid negotiating with AI. This way, Barry will understand exactly what AI is questioning and will ultimately regain trust in Larry’s value. In the case of Charlie, Barry has to provide further explanations of why
the work took the time it did and should not be devalued.
Rather than be offended or panic, lawyers should understand that AI has raised the standards of a client questioning their work that has been accepted for far too long. Lawyers must always justify their value and their service level and cannot be complacent. If they are able to do so, a client will appreciate it and trust them even more.
AI is a tool. A very powerful one. But service professionals provide service; judgment, strategy, explanation and accountability. The prompt still has to come from somewhere, and the answer still has to be helpful in accomplishing the client’s goal. That’s what the client is actually paying for, whether they realize it or not.
Jacob Murad is the managing partner and general counsel to Bluestar Equity, a private equity family office in Toronto, as well as president of KPA Lawyers Professional Corporation, a full-service law firm in Mississauga, Ont. He has served as general counsel and director for a large number of private companies throughout Canada and was responsible for the negotiation of complex mergers and acquisitions across a variety of industries. He is a member of the Law Society of Ontario’s Coach and Mentor Roster. He can be reached at jacob@kpalawyers.ca.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
