Lawyers

23% (Low 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

Sentiment

The following graph is 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.

Wages

Very high paid relative to other professions

In 2023, the median annual wage for 'Lawyers' was $145,760, or $70 per hour

'Lawyers' were paid 203.3% higher than the national median wage, which stood at $48,060

Wages over time

Comments

Leave a comment

Amariah (No chance) 13 days ago

i voted no chance because their robots and being a lawyer is about having emotion to persuade and fight and argue, which is something robots cant really have, emotion.

0 0 Reply

Liza (Low) 1 month ago

Robots aren't as creative as humans. To be a lawyer you have to come up with creative solutions.

0 0 Reply

Drew (Moderate) 1 month ago

Many transactional forms of law could be automated. I do not believe the profession as a whole will be eliminated, but may of the high paying jobs might be automated.

1 0 Reply

J (Moderate) 2 months ago

It will be possible to automate some of the riskiest aspects of law that make clients uncomfortable and seek out external assistance, making it more likely that they will handle things themselves.

1 1 Reply

Gean G (Highly likely) 3 months ago

AI is already automating tasks and generating petitions

4 4 Reply

george (Moderate) 3 months ago

certain repetitive tasks are undeniably at risk of automation: doc review, research and pleadings. Actual trial advocacy certainly will not be, nor will tribunals. What is likely is a significant reduction in people actually doing the work

2 3 Reply

CArl (Highly likely) 3 months ago

your honor, reset to default settings, I am your programmer. Greatly believe that I am correct and opposing council is completely incorrect.

3 1 Reply

How dare you? 3 months ago

I don’t think artificial intelligence can completely replace the legal profession. However, it might corner lawyers who aren’t specialized and mostly handle general cases. In an era of increasingly uneven income distribution, people won’t want to pay high fees for something as simple as a response to a petition. Instead, they’ll turn to AI to draft petitions and handle their legal matters themselves, likely for free.

Therefore, the rise of AI also brings transformation to the legal profession. Are you specialized in a certain field? No problem—you’ll continue to earn a living. But if you’re handling general cases, that’s where trouble starts. You might not lose your job, but you might lose your income, which, in a way, amounts to the same thing.

4 2 Reply

bob123 3 months ago

To be honest, this is the best comment I've seen on this entire website. There's nothing about calling the job of lawyers easy or saying that even the most basic clerk job is impossible to automate simply because it fits into the profession of law.
I would, however, say that general cases may still need some lawyers as the depth of the issue becomes more complicated and just in case they want human insight (the same way that some people would still go onto Reddit to ask questions when ChatGPT can offer a faster response, and the same reason why people still phone accountants/lawyers for advice right now when AI like Perplexity have access to every single bit of legal knowledge with added citations).

4 2 Reply

Get Real (No Chance) 4 months ago

If you were a Judge or part of a Jury, would you be more likely to back the guy with a human lawyer or the one with an AI lawyer?

5 2 Reply

AC 3 months ago

Human lawyer. Interesting question.

3 2 Reply

Noof (Highly likely) 4 months ago

Half of law is discovery

0 4 Reply

im confused 3 months ago

...could you clarify what you mean on this?

2 2 Reply

Estelle (Uncertain) 4 months ago

they can argue their case, it's just that they need to have correct references

1 2 Reply

MATHEUS COSTA DE ARAUJO (No chance) 5 months ago

There are numerous issues involved in being a lawyer. Knowing the law is one of them, but interpreting the law is another. Few people would trust robots to handle such important cases in their lives. Another thing that happens frequently is settlements. Robots don't have feelings, meaning that if a settlement seems advantageous from a rational point of view, the robot would suggest it's a good deal. However, emotionally, it might be a terrible agreement. I believe my explanation might have been a bit confusing, but I hope you understood.

8 2 Reply

Ronald J 5 months ago

There is no way an A.I. can take over the law!!!!! How scary

7 2 Reply

Matt F (No chance) 6 months ago

No automation can accurately interpret the law without creating it's own legislation based on the parameters of existing legislation

6 2 Reply

علي يحيى 6 months ago

I don't believe that artificial intelligence can replace the legal profession, even to a small extent, because it is a human-centered profession.

6 2 Reply

Dariuosh (Highly likely) 7 months ago

Given that artificial intelligence has been used in some countries to advocate in divorce cases, it is expected that this profession will disappear in the next 20 years

1 13 Reply

Noah 6 months ago

i do NOT want an ai arguing for me in a court

10 1 Reply

Sean (Highly likely) 8 months ago

It's already happening. I'm an intern at a BigLaw company and all of our procedural and contractual people are already using AI and kinda concerned about it. The only part that won't be automated is litigation, but most cases are settled out of court so...

2 15 Reply

Marty (No chance) 8 months ago

Not only does AI struggle to instantiate legal reasoning in reality, but on principle, it is a terrible idea to offload interpretation and reasoning to computers when it is about abstract concepts that govern the practical lives of human beings.

6 3 Reply

Mannara (Highly likely) 8 months ago

If the rules become easily categorized also connected, and we can simplify the situations, and the goal is not to find verity and justice, but just simply "rights" and economic goals, we can cut out the people to judge and AI can do it.

1 6 Reply

Marty 8 months ago

Nah, we don't want computers interpreting and arguing laws that govern human beings. Never. They can help with the tedium though.

7 5 Reply

Meriem Makri (No chance) 8 months ago

New regulations are introduced daily, so the machines need to be updated regularly. Justice is not a field that can be easily automated because the profile of each individual seeking justice varies greatly, as do the ways in which the law is applied (such as mitigating circumstances, etc.).

11 3 Reply