����Ӱ��

Richard Susskind is a wise and well-respected thought leader. He writes intelligently and informatively about the legal market and technology. Today, he penned an article for The Times entitled: “”. That’s a seductive headline if ever I have heard one. 

It’s bold. It’s dramatic. And, in my view, it’s mostly nonsense.

The law doesn’t run

If you’ve ever worked with a lawyer, you’ll know that diligence and accuracy is key. Lawyers are trained to think first, think second and think third. Then, thinking done, they’ll do ‘just one more check’ before sharing guidance or direction. Speed is not a defining feature.

Now, legal AI is always seriously impressive. It is getting better by the day. Tools like Lexis+ AI can empower legal research, summarise cases and carry out fairly comprehensive drafting. The value AI adds is no longer hypothetical. Legal AI is being trialled widely and adopted at scale. Over the next few years, the pressure for all lawyers and law firms to adopt this technology will only grow. Here, Susskind and I are perfectly aligned.

But the bottleneck isn’t technology. It’s behaviour.

Some lawyers will race ahead. They’ll embrace AI with both hands and quietly start outperforming their peers. Others will move at a more comfortable shuffle. A few will cling to the inkwell until the lights go out.

The pace won’t be even. The adoption won’t be smooth. Will AI be a full replacement? Not in this decade.

No one-size-fits-all

There’s another myth to deal with: that once AI is “good enough”, we’ll all use the same system. One tool to rule them all. Outputs optimised, results standardised, decisions accelerated.

That’s not how legal work operates. Law thrives on tension. On challenge. On friction between views. Great lawyers don’t nod along – they push back. They test. They rewrite. In many ways working with AI is like holding a conversation in the mirror. It reflects. But it doesn’t stretch. An AI tool might make you faster. It might make your arguments better. But it won’t necessarily make the human sharper.

That’s the risk. The best lawyers don’t just know things – they test things. They engage in the messy, nuanced, human work that machines aren’t built for.

What separates the average from the exceptional? Passion.

AI has flattened the hierarchy. You no longer need a building full of associates to compete. You need one good brain, the best legal AI tool – and the right prompt. Scale is no longer the deep moat it once was. I believe there are three things that are important now.

1. Experience. Lawyers have a phenomenal sense of what matters, what’s persuasive and what’s right. A great boss once told me: “Success comes from good judgement. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. Make mistakes and learn from them”. When human instinct is combined with powerful AI tools, the opportunities are enormous. Just as a surgeon with a fine scalpel can achieve remarkable medical outcomes. But remove the human, and the scalpel lies useless on the floor. Give the scalpel to someone like me – a reasonably intelligent human who can follow instructions – and the result will be a bloody mess.
2. Awareness. Noticing the fine print everyone else skips over is a lawyer’s favourite party trick. Sadly (for them), AI will do it better. It will read more, see more and never tire. It will understand 6 paragraphs of legalese faster (and maybe better) than a human lawyer. But the human lawyer can read between the lines. They can read what is unwritten. They can interpret tone, sarcasm and subtext. AI will get better – but there are some human traits that a machine will never be able to interpret accurately.
3. Passion. This is a quiet, persistent, often irrational desire to do the work properly and to deliver more for a client. To drive to craft, not just complete. To think, not just output. Sure, an AI bot will never tire, but it takes a human to continually turn the handle to get the work that is desired. Passion is what turns an AI tool into a strategic weapon. It’s what lets a solo partner outmanoeuvre a 30-person team. Not because they have better tech. But because they care more about the outcome. They’ll practice and test their AI tools on new use cases. They’ll work their tools harder. 
   

It's not a shortcut. It’s a multiplier.

I believe that AI isn’t going to replace human effort. Yes, there will be some reorganisation of labour – technology does that. I doubt there are many typing pools left in law firms these days.

There will be lawyers who use AI to bypass thinking, speed up average work and churn out more of the same. They’ll get exactly that – faster, cheaper mediocrity. If AI becomes your autopilot, your work will look like everyone else’s. (Top tip: have you ever used the word “delve” in normal conversation? No? Didn’t think so. Probably means that text was written by AI). 

But with the right tools – those grounded in verified sources and specialist content – AI becomes a multiplier, not a shortcut. Those who use it to deepen their insight, test their judgement and deliver better work at speed will be operating on a different level.

They’re not automating or delegating work. They are not working less. Instead they’re amplifying their work. They’re sharpening their output. They’re becoming something closer to superhuman.

Will AI take my job?

Honestly, I’d be as wealthy as a NQ lawyer (!) if I got a pound every time someone asked me that. I think it is the wrong question to ask. As I have explained, it makes assumptions about technology, lawyers and the law. Instead, I urge you to start asking: what could my job become if I used AI better than anyone else?

In a world where the tools are available to all, your edge isn’t the software. It’s what you do with it, how deeply you think and how fiercely you care.

The future won’t be won by bots. It’ll be won by lawyers who obsess over their craft, sharpen their judgement, focus on the areas others overlook and use every tool available to raise the bar – not lower it.