Lawyers
Want this summary on your site? Embed code:
Automation risk
Low Risk (21-40%): Jobs in this level have a limited risk of automation, as they demand a mix of technical and human-centric skills.
More information on what this score is, and how it is calculated is available here.
User poll
Our visitors have voted there's a low chance this occupation will be automated. This assessment is further supported by the calculated automation risk level, which estimates 22% chance of automation.
What do you think the risk of automation is?
What is the likelihood that Lawyers will be replaced by robots or artificial intelligence within the next 20 years?
Sentiment
The following graph(s) are included wherever there is a substantial amount of votes to render meaningful data. These visual representations display user poll results over time, providing a significant indication of sentiment trends.
Sentiment over time (quarterly)
Sentiment over time (yearly)
Growth
The number of 'Lawyers' job openings is expected to rise 9.6% by 2032
Total employment, and estimated job openings
Updated projections are due 09-2023.
Wages
In 2022, the median annual wage for 'Lawyers' was $135,740, or $65 per hour
'Lawyers' were paid 193.1% higher than the national median wage, which stood at $46,310
Wages over time
Volume
As of 2022 there were 707,160 people employed as 'Lawyers' within the United States.
This represents around 0.48% of the employed workforce across the country
Put another way, around 1 in 209 people are employed as 'Lawyers'.
Job description
Represent clients in criminal and civil litigation and other legal proceedings, draw up legal documents, or manage or advise clients on legal transactions. May specialize in a single area or may practice broadly in many areas of law.
SOC Code: 23-1011.00
Resources
If you're thinking of starting a new career, or looking to change jobs, we've created a handy job search tool which might just help you land that perfect new role.
Comments
Leave a comment
Plus, a lot of lawyers have strong political connections and a lot of money and influence. No way they'd willingly allow themselves to be replaced by AI.
Ministerial work like estate, wills, estate planning, corporations law, definitely.
Contract law, most likely. Use of standardized language and exploiting vague wording seems like AI forte.
Litigation, nope. Despite what people say it's about critical thinking skills. In many case its the opposite. It's creative BS'ing.
Dealing with people who are can be genuine boneheads or lazy, but may be in positions of authority or needed for your case.
Criminal Law and Family law, don'teven think about it. Both involve real stakes for people's rights and extreme emotions of those involved. Many times requiring subjective evaluation of evidence.
Numerous cases pivot on the attempt to convince a jury, or judge in certain cases, that your version of the facts is accurate. Furthermore, while you will be able to ask an AI about a law, it's unlikely that the AI will be able to interpret the facts from your situation and apply them to the law. This is because interpreting whether the facts of your case apply to the scope of the law often requires inherently human ingenuity and creative thinking.
Also, whether the law applies to your case, or if convicted, whether your sentence should be reduced, can often involve making appeals to morals and the specific circumstances of the case. Some argue that AI will be able to draft commercial contracts between businesses. This may be true, but it would first require someone, ideally a lawyer, to advise you on whether certain agreements you've made will increase your liability or position you more favorably in case of a contractual breach. An AI would simply write the contract, presumably more quickly and with fewer mistakes.
Finally, many seem to believe that the law is black and white. This is incorrect for several reasons and is an area where AI would likely struggle. In countries like the U.K., U.S., India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, many areas of law are not governed by statute but created on a case-by-case basis. This can result in a lack of consistency in the law and occasional conflicting judicial decisions. Lawyers often argue that these cases can be reconciled, or that, in contemporary society, one decision is more favorable than another.
Even regarding statute law, there are usually many approaches to 'legislative interpretation' (such as textualism, structuralism, or intentionalism). At different points in time, the legal system has preferred one approach over another for certain issues. While AI might be able to explain this, I fear many will not give it the appropriate significance it deserves. This could result in individuals mistakenly thinking they have not committed a tort, traffic offense, crime, etc. due to a particular interpretation method.
Additionally, even when a certain method of statutory interpretation is preferred, a skilled lawyer could argue that a different approach should be applied due to special circumstances in the case, changing societal values, or a discrepancy between Parliament/Congress' expressed intention about the application of the legislation and how the law is currently being applied.
In terms of arbitration or conciliation, the entire point of lawyers in these circumstances is not necessarily to know the law, but to provide impartial advice from someone who isn't emotionally invested in the issue. Clients often do not think rationally due to the emotive nature of the circumstances. However, AI will likely automate 'grunt work' like finding cases, writing letters, and contracts. AI will also likely be beneficial because many commercial and property disputes may not warrant paying expensive fees for lawyers - the same goes for low-level criminal and traffic offenses.
I also don't see many people mentioning that AI itself will likely create more work for lawyers. For example, claims that an AI gave not only bad legal advice, but outright negligent advice, and whether the owner company should be liable. Issues like AI being discriminatory, privacy breaches, and the extent to which AI will be allowed to give legal information or answer legal concerns about specific facts will undoubtedly arise. There will likely be news articles about how someone was negatively affected by using AI. Unlike lawyers, it would be much harder to prove liability for the company that owns the AI. Therefore, the use of AI in relation to the law is likely to be limited - at least for public use.
Even if not limited by the government, I believe a sophisticated AI law robot would likely be locked away behind an expensive paywall that only legal firms and other companies could afford. AI might also not be proficient in law in many smaller countries for a significant period. I've noticed it often doesn't recognize the law or case I referred to, or it completely misinterprets the definition, facts, and decisions of that law or case.
A final issue with the use of AI is that it may often provide incorrect laws. Court cases in many countries refer to cases in other countries or states. Because of this, the AI might read the case name mentioned and provide a plethora of decisions from completely different jurisdictions.
Leave a reply about this occupation