律师

低风险
30%
您接下来想去哪里?
与朋友和家人分享您的结果。
投票 评论 (217)
或者,更深入地探索这个职业...
自动化风险
计算出的
23%
(低风险)
投票
36%
(低风险)
Average: 30%
劳动力需求
增长
5.2%
到2033年
工资
$145,760
或每小时 $70.07
体积
731,340
截至 2023
摘要
工作评分
7.7/10

人们还浏览了

计算自动化风险

23% (低风险)

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。

工作中的一些非常重要的品质很难实现自动化:

  • 谈判

  • 说服

工作中的一些相当重要的品质难以自动化:

  • 社会洞察力

  • 原创性

用户投票

在接下来的二十年内,实现全自动化的可能性为36%

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23%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

以下图表在有大量投票数据时会显示。这些可视化图表展示了用户投票结果随时间的变化,提供了情感趋势的重要指示。

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

相对于其他职业的快速增长

预计"Lawyers"的工作空缺数量将在2033内增长5.2%

总就业人数和预计的职位空缺

* 根据劳工统计局的数据,该数据涵盖了从2021到2031的期间。
更新的预测将在09-2024到期.

工资

相对于其他职业,薪酬非常高

在2023,'Lawyers'的年度中位数工资为$145,760,或每小时$70。

'Lawyers'的薪资比全国中位工资高203.3%,全国中位工资为$48,060。

随着时间推移的工资

* 来自美国劳工统计局的数据

体积

与其他职业相比,明显更多的工作机会范围。

截至2023,在美国有731,340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207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

在您的本地区搜索工作岗位

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。

在您的本地区搜索工作岗位

评论

Leave a comment

Gean G (极有可能) 8 days ago
AI is already automating tasks and generating petitions
0 0 Reply
george (适度) 8 days 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
0 0 Reply
CArl (极有可能) 18 days ago
your honor, reset to default settings, I am your programmer. Greatly believe that I am correct and opposing council is completely incorrect.
1 0 Reply
How dare you? 28 days 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.
1 0 Reply
bob123 12 days 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).
0 0 Reply
Get Real (No Chance) 1 month 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?
2 0 Reply
AC 25 days ago
Human lawyer. Interesting question.
1 0 Reply
Noof (极有可能) 1 month ago
Half of law is discovery
0 0 Reply
im confused 12 days ago
...could you clarify what you mean on this?
0 0 Reply
Estelle (不确定) 2 months ago
they can argue their case, it's just that they need to have correct references
0 0 Reply
MATHEUS COSTA DE ARAUJO (没有机会) 2 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.
5 0 Reply
Ronald J 3 months ago
There is no way an A.I. can take over the law!!!!! How scary
6 0 Reply
Matt F (没有机会) 3 months ago
No automation can accurately interpret the law without creating it's own legislation based on the parameters of existing legislation
5 0 Reply
علي يحيى 3 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.
5 0 Reply
Dariuosh (极有可能) 4 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 10 Reply
Noah 4 months ago
i do NOT want an ai arguing for me in a court
9 0 Reply
Sean (极有可能) 6 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 12 Reply
Marty (没有机会) 6 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 (极有可能) 6 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 6 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 (没有机会) 6 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.).
10 1 Reply
Person (适度) 6 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 (没有机会) 6 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.
7 1 Reply
Jude Jordan 7 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.
12 1 Reply
Bigmonkey123 (低) 7 months ago
I think the puplic won’t really want a robot defending them
10 1 Reply
J 7 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.
2 17 Reply
'fillthy' racist, apparently 7 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.
11 1 Reply

关于这个职业请留下您的评论

此网站受到reCAPTCHA和Google的隐私政策以及服务条款的保护。