律师
想在您的网站上显示这个摘要吗?嵌入代码:
自动化风险
低风险(21-40%):这个级别的工作面临的自动化风险较低,因为它们需要技术和以人为中心的技能的混合。
有关这个分数是什么以及如何计算的更多信息可在这里找到。
用户投票
我们的访客投票表示,这个职业被自动化的可能性很低。 这个评估进一步得到了通过计算得出的自动化风险等级的支持,该等级预计有22%的机会实现自动化。
你认为自动化的风险是什么?
律师在未来20年内被机器人或人工智能取代的可能性有多大?
情感
以下图表会在有大量投票数据可以呈现有意义的数据时包含在内。这些视觉表示显示了用户投票结果随时间的变化,提供了对情绪趋势的重要指示。
随着时间的推移的情绪(季度)
随着时间(每年)的情绪变化
增长
预计"Lawyers"的工作空缺数量将在2032内增长9.6%
总就业人数和预计的职位空缺
更新的预测将在09-2023到期.
工资
在2022,'Lawyers'的年度中位数工资为$135,740,或每小时$65。
'Lawyers'的薪资比全国中位工资高193.1%,全国中位工资为$46,310。
随着时间推移的工资
体积
截至2022,在美国有707,160人被雇佣为'Lawyers'。
这代表了全国就业劳动力的大约0.48%
换句话说,大约每209人中就有1人被雇佣为“Lawyers”。
工作描述
代表客户参与刑事和民事诉讼以及其他法律程序,起草法律文件,或管理或就法律交易向客户提供咨询。可能专攻某一领域,也可能广泛地在许多法律领域进行执业。
SOC Code: 23-1011.00
资源
如果您正在考虑开始新的职业生涯,或者想要换工作,我们已经为您创建了一个方便的工作搜索工具,它可能会帮助您找到那个完美的新角色。
评论
留下评论
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.
关于这个职业请留下您的评论