Advogados

23% (Baixo Risco)

Risco Baixo (21-40%): Trabalhos neste nível têm um risco limitado de automação, pois exigem uma mistura de habilidades técnicas e centradas no ser humano.

Mais informações sobre o que é essa pontuação e como ela é calculada estão disponíveis aqui.

Enquete do usuário

Sentimento

O gráfico a seguir é incluído sempre que há uma quantidade substancial de votos para gerar dados significativos. Essas representações visuais mostram os resultados das enquetes dos usuários ao longo do tempo, fornecendo uma indicação importante das tendências de sentimento.

Salários

Muito bem remunerado em relação a outras profissões

Em 2023, o salário anual mediano para 'Lawyers' foi de $ 145.760, ou $ 70 por hora

'Lawyers' receberam 203,3% a mais do que o salário médio nacional, que era de $ 48.060

Salários ao longo do tempo

Comentários

Leave a comment

MATHEUS COSTA DE ARAUJO (Sem chance) 10 days 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.

2 0 Reply

Ronald J 30 days ago

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

3 0 Reply

Matt F (Sem chance) 1 month ago

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

3 0 Reply

علي يحيى 1 month 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.

3 0 Reply

Dariuosh (Altamente provável) 2 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

0 8 Reply

Noah 2 months ago

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

6 0 Reply

Sean (Altamente provável) 3 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...

1 10 Reply

Marty (Sem chance) 4 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.

5 1 Reply

Mannara (Altamente provável) 4 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 5 Reply

Marty 4 months ago

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

6 2 Reply

Meriem Makri (Sem chance) 4 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.).

8 1 Reply

Person (Moderado) 4 months ago

when analising details it can easily make a story, who cares how it is phrased if everyone agrees it makes sense

0 3 Reply

John (Sem chance) 4 months ago

It requires nuanced opinion-formation and decision-making skills that cannot be replicated by a program. Not to mention, depending on the field, it may involve gut instinct and other talents which only humans have.

6 1 Reply

Jude Jordan 5 months ago

Lawyers will not be replaced by AI for a while because, regardless of how capable AI actually is in technical, ethical, and reasoning aspects, the people who will write into law and decide whether or not AI should be able to serve as lawyers, are themselves lawyers. The giant law industry as it is, will never allow for AI to legally serve as lawyers in the foreseeable future.

11 1 Reply

Bigmonkey123 (Baixo) 5 months ago

I think the puplic won’t really want a robot defending them

9 1 Reply

J 5 months ago

I worked in the job, and robots are nicer than many humans. And even professional receptionists.

They'll do less errors, and don't require sleep. No more receptionist that is away. Longer opening hours.

Why do you say robots have no empathy, you fillthy racist? They have it. Robots would probably beat you up.

1 16 Reply

'fillthy' racist, apparently 5 months ago

Robots have programmed empathy. They don't actually feel it, because it is a robot (could you guess?).
Not that I'd expect someone who doesn't even know the definition of 'racist' and just flings the word around however would know what empathy is...
And besides, you never even addressed what they said. They didn't even bring up empathy, as their point was about people not wanting a robot to defend them. You've brought up a completely nonsensical rebuttal to an argument that doesn't exist.

9 1 Reply

jim jim (Moderado) 5 months ago

AI will know and understand the law better than any human could.

5 12 Reply

J (Sem chance) 5 months ago

Being a lawyer requires understanding emotion, being able to improvise, and thinking out of the box.

These are the tasks that robots won't be able to fulfill for at least a decade from now.

8 1 Reply

J (Sem chance) 5 months ago

Being a lawyer requires understanding emotion, being able to improvise, and thinking out of the box.

These are the tasks that robots won't be able to fulfill for at least a decade from now.

5 0 Reply

AIPredictor (Baixo) 5 months ago

It is a low chance that a lawyer's job would be replaced by robots because of the fact that AI lacks the fundamental arguing skills and the "human" perspective into the side of things. An example of this would be if a lawyer is defending a client by saying the statement, "What would you do in this situation" and working your way up to it was the best decision they could have made. Also the robot lawyers would have to base their arguments off of data, which would mean their own lawyer would turn against them if having more proof for the other side

6 1 Reply

ez (Baixo) 6 months ago

this job requires skills like persuasion, originality, social perceptiveness, and more, which make it hard to automate.

6 0 Reply

Daddy Dirtbag (Sem chance) 6 months ago

Robots would be way less convincing

6 0 Reply

James (Baixo) 6 months ago

Lawyers are one of few occupations that require persuasivness to be good at your job. An AI cannot immitate human persuasivness unless it is made to be socially and mentally aware. This is a very unlikely scenario as it would come with big risk factors.

4 1 Reply