Lawyers




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 that there is a small chance this occupation will be replaced. 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 this occupation will be replaced by robots or AI in the next 20 years?
Growth
The number of 'Lawyers' job openings is expected to rise 9.6% by 2031
Total employment, and estimated job openings
Updated projections are due Sep 2023.
Wages
In 2022, the median annual wage for 'Lawyers' was $135,740, or $65.25 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.
People also viewed
Have your say
Elizabeth Annette Wolter on Writers and Authors
Someone who is passionate about storytelling on Writers and Authors
Vk on Computer Programmers
PeopleHereAreReallyDumb on Computer Programmers
Dave Leininger on Database Architects
Comments
Leave a comment
Obviously, the heart rate thing was a joke... kinda lol.
I am coding an expert system to act as my legal assistant and paralegal. I plan on expanding it into the AI field and having it, and many iterations of it handling my cases.
I am also working on using the same code to perform mediation as well.
This won't mean attorneys are out of a job, but it does mean that most of the complexities in the job will ease down.
But understanding the connections between words and associated ideas is a uniquely human ability.
As a client, how would you build your confidence to ask the advice of a lawyer robot? How do you know it handles your data properly and who guarantees it? The government, or big tech companies? The very idea beats GDPR and the most up-to-the-minute legislations even.
Though I think in administration exists a few jobs which could be made completely useless by just automatizing. This would already be possible at this moment, but I guess governments just don't intend to have thousands of unemployed ex-administrators just for the reason of being 'more efficient'.
2) How often do you see ROSS the robot fight cases in e-courts
3) Robots can only refer to cases but they cant place an argument. And arguments are driven by facts and morality
Do share your views on it after considering this
I do not see a replacement very feasible but rather a help towards the lawyer or towards the judiciary.
Other than that, there are other factors to consider when we ask ourselves if law will be automated:
The actual jobs - I think "menial" tasks such as contract revision on the states can (an already can be done) by an AI.
However, other functions such as advocacy and the judging function performed either by a judge or a jury, cannot be replaced by robots. This in part because, as Hart puts it, law is an institution.
If we put this perspective in the light of automation, we must turn into the rules and principles that govern the institution which we know as law. This becomes much more clear when we are talking about criminal law and the principles that govern it, and when we contrast it to algorithms which, for example, determine if someone will go on parole or not (algorithms which already exist and are in use.) however, two things are very obvious once we look at them, the first being that these algorithms struggle with what is known as "AI bias" and second, that the reason of why they do so is because they are trained with, and designed to operate, under utilitarian evaluations of morality.
Any person who has at least read some legal philosophy and jurisprudence would notice how problematic these evaluations can be, and their possible consequences, just by glancing at them.
A purely Kantian approach to morality in these machines would also be quite problematic (going back to my original example of just applying a rule over X case that fits.) Are law and morality even two things that need to have a necessary connection? This is still a very much undecided question, and one to which positivists tend to answer "no."
Other things to have in mind are the way judges evaluate proof and evidence, and how they are required to bring said evaluations to light in order for any judging to be fair, and the very nature of law and jurisprudence. "What is law" "What are rules" are questions that still persist to this day.
There's a lot more than could be said, also, about the relation of law to politics, specially regarding the law-making process. So too is politics a job which could hardly be automated, because of its intrinsic nature.
Expert systems are being built on tasks assume "hard for computers."
Robot should replace lawyers totally to prevent these.
However, there should be investigators to input other factors to come-up with the final result.
Your Right
It's like saying, I hope instead of doing all this complicated surgery we could just drag and drop and close up the patient. Do you not care about the quality of the final product you receive?
I think u r just being logical but it was a little immoral. Lawyers have to work a lot and voicemails and text are always buzzing.
They are even threatened at some point if they are involved in a murder case.
Be a little more respectful.
The foundations of the law and the artefacts produced are better structured than many other fields of human endeavors. This structure make the legal process more machine readable and understandable.
That is why
The situation is very different for paralegals, whose work is often "mechanical" and non-subjectively orientated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister#United_States
There is a separate page for Paralegals and Legal Assistants, and interestingly the probability is much higher.
https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/23-2011-paralegals-and-legal-assistants
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-robot-lawyer-fighting-parking-tickets-across-us-152052274.html
Leave a reply about this occupation