The influx of generative AI is prompting partners to rethink how they train associates, say patent and trademark counsel.
As this technology evolves, lawyers believe they may be able to ask AI to draft forms that would have once been written by junior counsel.
Michelle Cooke, partner at ArentFox Schiff in Los Angeles, says that as clients incorporate generative AI, they’ll also expect firms to do the same. This could have an impact on how much clients want to pay for work, she suggests.
“If generative AI can spit out a form complaint that an associate would have taken 10 to 12 hours to draft, how does that impact the pricing model?”
She adds: “I do think there’s going to be this shift in law firms on how we gauge the productivity of associates.”
Though the technology is in its infancy and still has a lot of problems, it has prompted counsel to consider how junior lawyers can make the most of it and what it will mean for their day-to-day work.
More or less?
So far, the exact impact of AI on the responsibilities of associates is unknown.
But Cooke says firms will still need great, tech-savvy, and critically thinking young lawyers.
“My concern goes to the very junior people,” she says. “The things that law firms traditionally have done to train them are getting compressed as the tools are getting more efficient.”
However, Cooke says it’s still important for new hires to get proper training – even as this technology improves. Her view is shared by other partners at the firm.
Elizabeth Cohen, a partner in ArentFox Schiff’s New York office, says lawyers still need to learn how to write briefs and conduct other tasks.
“The benefit of being a junior associate is that you’re expected not to know everything, and you can learn how to do it all,” she says.
“They need to learn how to format a brief or transaction document by doing it, not by pressing a button and having AI spit it out.”
Other sources say AI could even be a great opportunity for junior lawyers.
Heather Kliebenstein, managing director at Merchant & Gould in Minneapolis, recalls that when she started training she had to physically go through hundreds of documents at client warehouses.
She said she would sit there for weeks and mark the documents depending on whether they were public or confidential.
Then firms started using document management systems, which allowed attorneys to conduct reviews much quicker and from their offices so that they could focus more on harder tasks.
“As an associate, my life got massively better,” she says. “I’m hopeful that AI will work the same way for associates and make their lives better too.”
Kliebenstein says junior lawyers probably won’t need to be able to sit down with a blank sheet of paper and write a brief like she had to do.
“It’s going to be incumbent on us as mentors and partners to understand the generational gap that’s occurring with the technology and accept a new way of working,” she says.
From Google to AI
But getting associates to use this technology properly presents its own issues.
Kliebenstein at Merchant & Gould says that as an experiment, she asked a generative AI to draft a summary judgment motion in a trademark case related to laches. Laches is a form of defence that aims to prevent parties from making a claim on the grounds that they waited too long.
Kliebenstein says she initially thought the document was a good start but soon realised that the AI had used copyright case law instead of trademark law.
“Although this technology can make associates’ jobs more meaningful, a big part of mentorship must be helping them identify when the results are wrong,” she notes.
Fortunately, the rise of technical assistance in jobs isn’t entirely uncharted waters.
Sources say the expected shift to AI has some parallels to the adoption of search engines, such as Google.
Cooke at ArentFox Schiff says that when Google – which was developed in the late 90s – was first used, some lawyers would automatically take the search engine’s top results as fact.
“As Google evolved, people started pushing back and realising that just because something is the first hit doesn’t mean it’s the right or only answer,” she notes.
Part of training can also include helping junior counsel figure out which questions to ask of an AI so that they get the best results.
Robert Surrette, president at McAndrews in Chicago, says working with associates on AI issues may be comparable to reviewing research that they’ve done themselves.
In these cases, partners would review junior lawyers’ work and ask them whether they had thought to look into certain issues.
“I imagine the AI process will be very similar,” he says.
In it together
Though partners have to help their associates figure out how to use this technology, they’re also learning how to use it themselves.
Kliebenstein says one of the best ways to help newer lawyers understand what questions to ask the AI is to do it with them.
“Everyone in the law firm will have to walk the walk together,” she says.
At her firm, lawyers are very interested in AI, are experimenting with it, and have been helping their clients understand it, she adds.
It can also be important to decide how to approach this technology on a firm-wide level.
Surrette at McAndrews says his firm only has around 65 lawyers, which makes it easier to craft a thoughtful policy.
“We won’t just let the associates run wild and see what happens. We’ll have a much more formalised, intentional approach,” he says.
Those who are unsure about how to use this technology could also seek outside help.
Robert Plotkin, co-founder of law firm Blueshift IP in Boston, says firms could hire technology experts or consultants to get a good idea about how to use these tools effectively.
When not to use
It’s also important to educate attorneys about when not to use this tech.
Cohen at ArentFox Schiff says there are still privacy concerns with generative AI, which means using it could violate attorney-client privilege.
Surrette at McAndrews agrees, noting that counsel might be able to use it to do some research or draft questions.
“But you have to be careful about what information you’re feeding it,” he says.
Given some of these issues, not all firms expect generative AI to be essential to their practices in the immediate future.
But given the rapid pace at which the technology is evolving, counsel will have to monitor the space to see whether the concerns of today still hold true tomorrow.
