According to Mark Lemley, a Stanford intellectual property professor well versed in legal tech, most law students and junior lawyers are likely using general services like ChatGPT, since those are the most accessible.

“One way you get good legal instincts for logical arguments is by getting the reps in—trying things, and doing them over and over,” says Lemley. He worries that wider adoption of AI means young lawyers may not be gaining some of the analytic skills that have traditionally been acquired through extensive reading of case law and statutes.

Lemley also observes that AI is increasingly taking on tasks like writing briefs and crafting arguments, which many attorneys view as the fun part of the job, and which typically fall to more senior attorneys.

All of this raises the question of not just how lawyers will spend their time in the future, but also how they will charge for their services. For years, clients have fought—typically with limited success—to introduce alternative fee arrangements in order to escape paying by the hour for junior associates to go down legal rabbit holes.

In the future, Lemley says, the situation may be reversed as clients—realizing that AI can perform many legal tasks in minutes not hours—ask to be billed for fixed blocks of time, while law firms propose flat fees and other arrangements.