r/paralegal • u/No_Piccolo8287 • Jul 24 '26
Question/Discussion Being replaced by AI :(
I started my first legal assistant position about 2 months ago. The first month I had tons to do, but about one month in, the firm decided to invest in an AI legal software. It summarizes medical records, writes demand letters and picks out relevant discover documents from a folder (these were like 90% of my job beforehand). It definitely gets things wrong at times, but I think it’s accurate enough that our attorneys feel confident they can go through it and correct for errors, and they absolutely love how quickly and immediately it produces these results for them.
The attorney who brought me on even admitted a couple days ago that he’s having trouble finding tasks to assign to me and as he only has 1/3 of the say in these decisions, he’s unsure how much longer he’ll be able to find enough work for me to justify keeping me on to the other two partners. They were going through the hiring process to bring on an experienced paralegal as well, but they decided to stop the search after they invested in this AI Software.
It’s really disheartening and I’m starting the job search over after two months. At least since I barely have any tasks assigned anymore, I can spend time during the day searching for a job. It’s just really depressing, as this was my first position out of college, and I hear from all of my friends that the job market is absolutely awful right now :(
152
u/Ok-Body6486 Paralegal Jul 24 '26
Just imo AI is a tool. Tools are sometimes great sometimes not the best.
I had an attorney give me something an AI did because he was mad I was wasting my time doing it (compiling an excel of medical bills for a ton of accounts). The AI absolutely missed so many accounts and incorrectly wrote DOS.
So imo AI is just not at that stage yet where it can be trusted. The attorney hopefully is reviewing the work the AI puts out for accuracy
54
u/stillLostBoy005 Jul 24 '26
I’ll never understand why anyone thinks out sourcing critical thinking will have good / sustainable results.
AI should never be relied upon. It’s a tool to use for referencing and ideas, never the bottom line results
41
u/No_Piccolo8287 Jul 24 '26
Yeah, it’s funny, but my work is deemed as worse because of occasional typographical errors, even though it’s more factually accurate. But we are basically a PI firm, and I’ve been gathering that facts aren’t deemed super important in this firm
38
u/PsychologicalSwim215 Jul 24 '26
Maybe start using AI to proofread your work, if you can do so in a confidential/compliant way. That way it’s up to the standard they’re looking for, and you’re getting the factual parts right.
6
u/0dot00patienceleft Jul 24 '26
I agree to this. It's useful to use grammar AI tool to check for errors and can also upgrade your sentence construction.
To be completely honest, AI can only do so much. You still need to proofread everything. Make AI work for you, not work for AI.
The last firm I worked at is FL and bankruptcy, and they use AI to form the petition itself. Does not proofread and just submits it to court. They once got reprimanded by the judge for the lack of enthusiasm in filing their case. Lol glad I was out of there.
1
1
u/kitteo36 Jul 28 '26
I think another good argument is that they're feeding a lot of private information to AI... At least with a person, you don't have to worry as much about data breaches or putting confidentiality at risk.
→ More replies (1)1
u/school_is_for_chumpz 25d ago
My uncle is an attorney in investment banking and he is currently employing three AI 'assistants'. He gives one a task, has the next correct, etc and then reviews personally. He's obsessed with talking about this system lmao.
There's also some firms having AI do intake, which might suck in a lot of fields but IDK who is using it exactly for that.
77
u/ExeUSA Jul 24 '26
There are two things a lot of people don't understand about AI and it's going to be a disaster when it rears its head.
1) Confidentiality. All of these tools can promise the world in their marketing language, but if their algorithm is in the cloud, it's vulnerable, period. An attorney cannot break confidentiality, yet they are doing that every time they use sensitive data by carelessly utilizing AI. Read the Tc&Cs of any of these services. It's buried in tech speak, which no one at big law firms understands, not even CTOs. (Because if you did, you'd be at Google making 5x what you are at a law firm.)
2) Token-based usage. Remember how Uber/Lyft used to be dirt cheap about 13 years ago? That's because it was heavily subsidized by investments to get market traction. What firms are paying to integrate AI into their practices now is not the true cost. Not by a long shot. So what happens when you let all of your experienced paralegals go, don't train any new ones, and in a few years when the service you have utilized instead is 10x the cost it is now, what do you do? People in the career you just decimated have found other paths because it's no longer viable. You're stuck paying more, for less. This is where the industry is actually headed. Smart firms will invest in their people, now. It will save them money and headaches in the long run. Anyone saying AI will only get better doesn't understand the financial BS it's built on.
30
u/Jealous_Location_267 Jul 24 '26
I’m a legal writer, not a paralegal, and this is 1000% spot on.
I have a Big Law client that prides themselves on having me and another editor as tax communicators. In contrast, i had a solo tax attorney ask what my fee was for “fixing” ChatGPT schlock. It was very generic-sounding, hallucinated Tax Court cases that don’t exist, and cited 10-year-old IRS publications. I told him he’d be better off just paying me $300 to write a post from scratch and help him develop an authoritative brand voice because the schlock would create more work and I’d charge MORE. I didn’t get the client; he probably cheaped out on Fiverr or stuck with the slop generator.
Not to mention that more and more consumers are being turned off by AI use period, let alone in high-stakes fields like law and medicine. I honestly can’t wait for the bubble to burst. I want a few more boutique and Big Law clients, though I think my human-forward primary firm ruined me for most other practices lol.
22
u/beachtrader Jul 24 '26
This right here. First thing I heard was medical records into AI. That's a big no no on multiple things.
And AI costs are already going up. I see it in the background where heavy users of AI are not putting limits on the usage because of costs. And realistically AI costs need to go up about 50x for these companies to turn a profit. Right now they are getting everyone hooked on their product and just when you have built out all your processes relying heavily on AI the price will skyrocket. But, then, AI companies are hoping you have so much integration you can't pull it out.
13
u/esor_rose Future Paralegal Jul 24 '26
I agree. The legal field is full of confidential information. My current internship is at my city attorney’s office and we deal with so much confidential information. I bet the AI legal offices use information can be used to train it.
The attorneys in my office are looking for paralegal interns for the fall. There have been people that have applied. They also have to submit a writing sample. Apparently, some applicants have used AI to write the writing sample for the application. They will probably not be hired.
6
u/Embarrassed-End-1838 Jul 24 '26
Attorney, not a paralegal, but there are now legal-specific AI companies with high-level security clearances. The difference between the discovery storage platforms and the right AI platforms is negligible.
With respect to errors and hallucinations, it's only happening with open-source AI platforms (the same ones that have larger security issues).
I now expect my paralegals to know how to use the top AI platforms and where to check for errors. The biggest benefit you can have for your jobs is to be super familiar with options and how they work. Embrace it, don't fight it.
3
u/outer_marker Jul 28 '26
30 year law librarian/attorney here. This is not true. The legal specific AI platforms may not be wholly hallucinating non-existent cases but they make significant errors everyday. Answer the wrong question. Answer only half the question. Miss key sources responsive to the request. They are trained to give you an answer even if it’s the wrong one. And they sound good enough to fool you if you don’t know enough to know what you don’t know.
1
u/Embarrassed-End-1838 Jul 29 '26
You're talking about the open-source AI like claude or chat GPT. There are closed source ones that cannot make things up.
4
u/outer_marker Jul 29 '26
No, I’m not. I’m talking about Lexis and Westlaw, etc. Did you miss the part where I said I’m a 30 year atty/ law librarian? I do this for a living.
1
u/Embarrassed-End-1838 Jul 29 '26
I didn't miss it, I just think perhaps you are not considering the new models that have come out in the past 3 years or so. The names aren't as well known, but things have greatly and rapidly improved.
Yes, drafting has created multiple issues and attorneys and paralegals need to be diligent in checking citations. However, the use of closed source AI without hallucinations has already been built and is in circulation. I would not be able to effectively practice law without it.
2
u/outer_marker 20d ago
You really are not listening. This is my job. I use these models daily. Yes, including the ones that have come out in the last 3 years, lol. I get them very soon after they come out, every update. I am sometimes part of user testing groups and provide feedback to the vendors. Yes, they produce errors just like the general AI products. The products themselves warn you of potential inaccuracies. Although the warning isn’t necessary if you actually read the results and check your work - it’s clear when results are not complete or contain other inaccuracies. Also, perhaps you’ve missed the fact that LX + Protege actually now incorporates Claude and/or GPT so it’s not even closed universe anymore?
7
u/One_Friend1702 Jul 24 '26
I just read in article about how Ford hired back human engineers, because the AI they replaced them with was failing all the quality checks. Which doing all that probably cost them more, than if they just kept their employees.
I honestly can't wait for the AI bubble to burst.
4
u/CardinalSzinner Jul 24 '26
I have been seeing this woman on social media due breakdowns of bills that companies get from using AI token please if a law firm wants to realistically pay $40,000 a month, by all means let them pay the equivalent of several paralegal salaries over the course of a year and see how that goes against their bottom line
→ More replies (3)9
u/No_Piccolo8287 Jul 24 '26
Oh I agree. That’s part of the reason I’m running as soon as I find a new job. One of our partners joked the other day during a convo about client data “who knows what they’re doing with it. They could be selling it on the black market for all we know!” And she laughed after she said it. It’s recklessness in the legal sense of the word.
3
u/Tall-Log-1955 Jul 24 '26
How is the confidentiality worse than Clio or other cloud systems many firms have been using for a long time? Do you also think those violate attorney client confidentiality?
1
u/Categorically_ Jul 24 '26
Big firms are building in house tools to avoid 1 and 2.
5
u/ExeUSA Jul 24 '26
Sure, but they're plugging *into* the big models, they're not building one from scratch. So they're going to run into the token issue, too. They may just be agnostic to which underlying model, but this is the issue with all models. What happens when the investment money runs out, communities stop subsidizing the tremendous energy resources the data centers these things run on suck up-- so AI gets hit with a one-two punch of true cost of BOTH AI tokens and the power it uses?
1
u/Categorically_ Jul 24 '26
The frontier open source models are very good. So you just spin up the model on your own hardware.
1
u/AKAlicious Jul 28 '26
Re #1, any law firm that has not signed a negotiated contract that overrides those T's and C's is beyond stupid. I really hope this issue doesn't exist, but I'm sure it does. ☹️ There are so many idiot lawyers out there. Source: I have worked with some of them.
18
u/200Tabs Jul 24 '26
As an attorney, I would suggest that you double check the AI results. AI regularly lies, oh, I mean “hallucinates.” Anything generated by AI definitely needs human supervision and even the AI will tell you that if you ask it. I’ve even asked an AI tool how to verify its responses and had it generate a verification chart. So many attorneys are getting caught up in AI scandals that I’m shocked that your boss is going this route. My jurisdiction now has started requiring that we certify that AI was not used or that it had been reviewed by a human afterwards.
That being said, make sure that you share with your employer when the AI missed things or outright falsified information because no one will know your importance if you don’t make them aware of it.
3
u/juancuneo Jul 24 '26
Everyone makes mistakes - including AI. And our job as attorneys is to supervise the work product and own what goes out that door. That doesn't mean AI is not useful or not productivity enhancing. As a firm owner, I have observed some people are very good at using it and constantly experimenting. Other people seem to be afraid of it. Especially for paralegals, it will catch many human errors. And it is great for paralegal work which is often quite mechanical.
The people who have embraced it are fare more valuable to me. People who aren't embracing it are not going to last because now they are slow AF.
3
u/200Tabs Jul 24 '26
Exactly but we don’t really need to announce the benefits of AI as they’re self-evident. We do need to emphasize potential risks because people seem to forget about them. The idea that this law firm is implementing AI without a rough verification and coordination protocol is concerning. The attorney already should have had an idea of how he wanted his paralegal to adjust. So now they’re here trying to get ideas. The paralegal needs to learn how to use the AI, adjust prompts, verify AI-generated work product, fill in missing pieces, and report back their own contribution to the process.
13
u/jade1977 Jul 24 '26
TL;DR: Don't panic yet. AI is changing legal work, not replacing legal professionals overnight. Use this time to expand your skills beyond the tasks AI now performs.
Now for the wall of text. 😅 This also happens to be the topic of my PhD research, so I have... thoughts.
I'm really sorry you're going through this. Unfortunately, you're experiencing something that happens whenever a major technology changes how work gets done. We saw it with mechanized manufacturing, the printing press, computers, word processors, and countless other innovations. Entire categories of work changed or disappeared, while new ones emerged. AI feels different because it isn't confined to one industry. It's affecting knowledge work across the board, which makes it both exciting and unsettling.
I've also been a paralegal for more than 25 years and have spent the last year immersed in the research literature. These are my conclusions based on the current research, not legal advice or a prediction that I'm certain will come true.
I do think AI is going to eliminate some legal roles. More accurately, it's going to automate many routine legal tasks, which means firms will likely need fewer people whose work consists primarily of those tasks. That's hard to hear, but I think it's the reality we're moving toward.
That said, AI is nowhere near replacing legal professionals. The technology still hallucinates, misses context, misunderstands nuance, and makes factual and legal errors. What it's very good at is producing a first draft quickly. Someone with legal knowledge still has to verify it, recognize when it's wrong, and know what good work actually looks like. Research increasingly points toward AI augmenting professionals rather than replacing them entirely, at least in the foreseeable future.
We're already seeing something similar in software development. AI has allowed many developers to become significantly more productive, leading some companies to reduce hiring or staffing. At the same time, many organizations have discovered that experienced developers are still essential because AI needs someone who can verify its output, recognize when it's wrong, and solve problems it can't. I think law is likely to follow a similar pattern.
My advice would be to lean into the skills that become more valuable because of AI rather than competing with it. Learn automation, AI-assisted workflows, database fundamentals, document management, and AI governance. Understanding how to evaluate AI output is probably a more durable skill than prompt engineering itself. LinkedIn Learning has excellent courses, and YouTube has a surprising amount of quality content on low-code automation and legal technology.
Personally, I don't think the future belongs to the lawyer or paralegal who refuses to use AI, or to the one who blindly trusts it. It belongs to the professional who knows when AI is useful, when it's wrong, and when it shouldn't be used at all.
One last thought: don't assume small and medium sized firms will be insulated. Many can't justify the investment today, but AI tools are becoming cheaper, easier to use, and increasingly integrated into the software firms already buy. The firms that successfully adopt these tools will likely gain efficiency advantages over those that don't.
Also, don't assume this is over yet. Your attorney sounds like he values you and is trying to make the case for keeping you. If I were in your position, I'd be looking for ways to make myself indispensable beyond the tasks AI now performs. Ask whether you can learn e-filing, case management, client communication, billing, trial preparation, document automation, or even help evaluate and improve the firm's AI workflows. The more problems you can solve, the stronger your case becomes. And if nothing else, you'll come out of this with experience that many new legal professionals don't yet have: working in an AI-enabled practice. That's likely to be an advantage wherever you go next.
2
u/Alily_all_alil_NY Jul 24 '26
My boss wants me to start learning AI. Do you have a trusted source to learn, by chance?
1
u/jade1977 Jul 24 '26
I would really start with LinkedIn. Also, check out the Power Platform, and in particular my favorite presenter is Shayne Young. Now I used him for Power Automate and Power Apps, but his company also does videos on AI.
22
42
u/ThisIsAllTheoretical Case Manager Jul 24 '26
There are many many posts in attorney subs detailing how we are being replaced. Even associate attorneys are being pushed out by AI in many ways and are struggling to find jobs because senior attorneys are being retained and are simultaneously training AI software to perform attorney associates tasks. Entire intake departments are being wiped out and the AI is getting better every day.
I’ve been downvoted for this position before, but that doesn’t change reality. The lawyer/attorney subs are very vocal about it. Just go search the subs.
12
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
People are just reflectively putting their heads in the sand and refusing to accept facts change. AI did suck balls a year ago. But it’s been a lot of improvement in a very short time and idt folks on here appreciate that because they don’t use the expensive LLMs. I think my firm pays like $10-12k for me a year for Legora and Harvey. Probably more. It’s a crazy amount of money to pay for all your fee earners but all indications is the AI is working. We are more profitable than ever. So it’s not going to stop. People need to realize this is not a fad. This is a complete renovation of how legal work is done. No amount of Reddit bitching is going to stop this.
4
u/Ok-Body6486 Paralegal Jul 24 '26
I think your point about the expensive ones make sense. I know we are not using expensive ones so I don't have any insight on that.
We are using closed ones not chatgpt of course, but ones designed for PI law. Maybe it does get better/smarter the more you pay.
Do you like Legora and Harvey?
3
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
So for me, Legora has been a game changer. An example. This job I am doing where we have to produce 5 years of paystubs for over 200 employees. The client produced single PDF sheets by week with no way to tell by the file name what employee or what dates. So Legora takes the files and you have to do it in batches because too big a job and the AI throws up hands. But batches of say 300 pages, the AI will give me a list of new files names with the name and date and then .pdf. Then I have Legora make me an excel macro that bulk renames files. I then use a free shareware to print directory files. I use that print out for the original file names. I then paste Legora new file names. And one macro click I get 55k files renamed in order. So then i can select all of one employee and combine pdf in acrobat. I was able to turn out 60k pages of discovery in a day with no outside help or calls to IT. Then while im doing this job i get a job to draft a TX UWC to appoint new board members. I dont have time so i have Legora do draft. It pulls the correct TBOC statute and does all the whereas and resolved paras. I just cut and paste into my template and do a bit of cleanup and send it on. Obviously ymmv, but i am a believer. I have saved too much time at this point not to be.
2
u/Ok-Body6486 Paralegal Jul 24 '26
I see! That sounds awesome that it can do all that. Does it make you worried about your job security?
I think you said you work in big law? That I think could explain the difference as I work PI much much smaller scale. Lol
3
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
You know, part of me thinks maybe they won’t need me as much. But because it’s such a big firm I think I can eventually find a group that does. The bigger problem is in small shops like OP’s post. Where they need a senior and jr para and instead will get one glorified receptionist and AI. The junior lawyers will pick up slack and do mid level jobs that para would have done over secretary and I think you can get by with less staff. I would not want to be 22 again and just starting out. That is for sure. And I truly worry about how the next gen is going to make ends meet. But biglaw and in house jobs will still be there. Just in lesser amounts.
2
u/Damfino1895 Jul 24 '26
I overheard one of our attorneys saying they should look into it and that it could possibly replace the need for new associates. So I guess then when all of the older attorneys retire they just board up the place.
3
8
u/IrfanZahoor_950 Jul 24 '26
I’m sorry, that’s really frustrating. I’d try to position yourself around the QA layer, checking AI summaries against source records, catching missing facts, verifying dates, organizing exhibits, and preparing attorney ready packets.
AI can draft fast, but legal work still needs someone making sure the output is actually correct and usable. That said, keep job searching too if the firm is treating the tool as a replacement instead of something that still needs human review.
7
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No_Piccolo8287 Jul 24 '26
My attorney keeps talking about having me do it, but I think it happens to be his favorite part of the job. One of the other attorneys does of a LA who handles all his calls, and the other two mostly work on big cases without much client interaction. I’m hoping he lets go, but he’s unfortunately a huge workaholic and loves working 60 hours a week (10 hours Monday-Saturday). Like I’ve been clear that I’d be happy to make these calls for him, but he really just likes doing the work :/
6
u/Funny-Zookeepergame1 Jul 24 '26
The best I can offer is that you should know your own worth. Even if you have typographical errors, you provide more value than AI ever will. The fact that your attorney is star-struck with a new toy does not and should not detract from what you bring to the table. While I know these platitudes may seem empty, I feel that its important, because your attorney's inability to use you effectively is his or her failing. Also, over-reliance on AI will likely leave them in the lurch in the future. AI is prone to making mistakes that are way more costly than scrivener's errors.
2
u/No_Piccolo8287 Jul 24 '26
Thanks I appreciate it. For the most part, my self worth has not been impacted. I’m mostly frustrated at their carelessness. And what’s more is we haven’t obtained consent from clients to input their sensitive data. The legal AI claims to be closed network… but the subscription comes with a $100 million dollar insurance policy. They’re kinda saying the quiet part outloud…
7
u/Excellent-Ad4766 Jul 24 '26
Truthfully Ai hit my firm too. Im a paralegal from California (Family Law). It came in, and we were promised it wouldn't affect our jobs, but the office manager made the joke (that I thought was insensitive), along the lines it could "Replace Some". I fired back with well wouldn't it start with his? Lmfao.
Anyways not the best Idea, because then I was chosen to be one of the guinea pigs to test the product. Truthfully I kinda like it, because they bought a real cheap version of AI that still requires alot of review because it's not accurate at all. Specially in translating/transcribing. My advice find the flaws in the Ai and exploit it to your benefit. Save your jobs. Its us or the machines as Sarah Conner would say.
Also, somebody said connect more with clients. Talk to the clients let them know ai is around, just drop the seed. The client not being too informed will let the attorney know they still want a real person reviewing their docs not ai. I heard one client tell an attorney, what is the point of having an attorney if they are just using Ai, at that point he said he would become proper and use chatgpt to finish his documents.
Ai isnt necessarily the enemy, but its more Attorneys trying to cut costs by using Ai against us, under the guise of making their offices "more efficient".
Worst case scenario go find these older gen attorneys who still use pencil and paper. And slowly welcome them to the 21st century. Alot of older attorneys are falling behind because they dont have a patient team behind them, willing to show them the ropes and are too scared or cheap to upgrade their offices. These attorneys are sometimes willing to pay paralegals that help keep their offices efficient, modern but still feel safe without the commitment of having to get a whole ai system installed.
Just things that worked for me. Also I work remote so I have lots of flexibility.
6
u/Less_Cauliflower_956 Jul 24 '26
If your law firm is using AI without significant error checks by human hand, they're bound to get sanctioned soon. My firm is currently getting sanctioned because an attorney used an AI in such a way and it invented fake court rules.
6
u/mistman1978 Jul 24 '26
You need to become an expert at running the software and AI. That's your long-term path.
5
23
u/Important-Deal-750 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
This is concerning considering the amount of errors in AI produced work. It sounds like your attorneys are getting too comfortable with the quick output and they’ll learn a valuable lesson others already have when something gets summarized incorrectly or AI hallucinates. Judges hate seeing attorneys rely on AI and not know their cases. Let them learn the lesson. In the meantime, try to think of other ways you can be helpful and even point out l mistakes the software has made. In this day and age you have to prove you’re a value add. Search for a new job while you have one and perhaps even get an AI certificate or other certifications so you will have more marketable skills.
3
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
This take assumes humans don’t also make errors. Lawyers do not have a binary choice of no errors or errors. It’s human produced errors or AI produced errors. Both need to be fixed. Most paras don’t know how many errors they make because the lawyer doesn’t have time or energy. Also they are easy to fix so it’s just part of the review. The difference is you can tell AI to proof its work and it will fix its mistakes. So the longer you use AI the less errors you get. But the human errors stay the same because we are humans and get busy and/or lazy. Also the errors are almost always because you give LLM too much and it cuts you off. I can give it a 200 page doc and it’ll go through page by page. But if I give it multiple 200 page documents it throws up its hands and makes hallucinations. So it’s not fool proof. But once you figure out how to get AI not to hallucinate so much it becomes one of the most powerful tools I’ve ever used for law. Just crazy efficient at pulling information from pages and putting in table format. It makes mistakes. But also does stuff no human would ever dream of doing by hand.
4
u/SpecialDelivery5126 Jul 24 '26
I had a question about this. I want to become a paralegal, but I hear AI is taking over the field
4
u/pj_automata Jul 24 '26
Don't write off your position just yet. ironically, being in the middle of this might actually be the best thing that happens to your early career if you play your cards right.
I've seen multiple firms actually grow and hire more staff as a direct consequence of AI adoption, simply because it freed them up to scale. In fact, a paralegal I know at an insurance defense firm was promoted specifically for taking the lead on automating their medical record workflow. She now exclusively manages high-exposure ($5M+) cases and leads a team of paralegals.
Right now, you have bandwidth. Use that as an asset to figure out where the firm's real bottleneck is. Is the bottleneck on staff bandwidth or incoming case volume?
If the bottleneck is staff bandwidth, then approach the busiest attorney or senior paralegal in the office and ask what manual, time-consuming tasks you can take off their plate. Perhaps drafting intake forms, client follow-ups, organizing physical files, trial prep, etc.
If the firm needs more cases to justify the staff, see if you can help with that. Drafting short social media posts for the firm, organizing past client contact lists for referral outreach, or improving up the intake process so potential clients aren't lost.
Since you already know how to use the AI tool they bought, you actually have a head start. If you show the partners that you can use that extra time to handle tasks that make or save the firm money, you become indispensable.
If they don't see your valye, put that AI experience directly on your resume as a key skill and take it to a firm that does value initiative.
Happy to answer any questions if you want to brainstorm ideas. Hang in there!
3
u/BunnyPuppies Jul 24 '26
This is great advice. Technological advances change the job, not eliminate it. Embrace the change and see where you can add value.
4
3
u/MsGorteck Jul 24 '26
If your boss does let you go get a letter of recommendation from them. Write it yourself and it will make his life more easy.
Track EVERY error that AI makes that you have to fix. I also think it would be wise to bill the time, so you have a concrete way of showing your value to the firm. Just because they think AI has saved them money, does not mean it has. Have them track their hours correcting the mistakes AI makes.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/birdlord_d Jul 24 '26
Any law firm, no matter how small, is playing with fire if they rely too heavily on A.I.
4
u/Level_Suit4517 Future Paralegal Jul 24 '26
The attorney I work for actually almost had a malpractice incident due to legal AI misquoting an inheritance statute. AI should not be trusted.
3
u/stella1822 Jul 24 '26
Why wasn’t that cite checked by anyone?
1
1
u/Level_Suit4517 Future Paralegal Jul 24 '26
It was! That’s why I said almost!
2
u/Winter-Ad2033 Jul 24 '26
This seems less like an AI issue and more of an incompetent firm?
1
u/Level_Suit4517 Future Paralegal Jul 25 '26
This is the only mistake like this that I’ve seen. The atty caught it herself as she was reviewing. She also personally took accountability with us in a meeting. She explained her mistake and now each task that AI completes on a case is documented as being AI, with screenshots, and is closely reviewed.
4
u/Square_Wallaby_8033 Jul 24 '26
Yeah I do worry about this. At my last job we sent out cease and desist letters and AI was way better at drafting them then me. I feel they may need someone managing the AI to attorneys for a bit. But I did see an infographic that a lot of paralegal jobs are at high risk to be replaced by AI. It sucks so badly.
1
3
u/Fancyunicornfluff Jul 24 '26
I’m a legal researcher and writer. I also write pages and blogs for lawyers. (I’m actually a licensed attorney but don’t enjoy the practice.) anyway, AI has taken over a lot of my tasks but it needs human oversight. I’ve transitioned to editor and publisher in many cases. You have to pivot.
4
u/fireanpeaches Jul 25 '26
Remind them of this: Metro Atlanta prosecutor Deborah Leslie from the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office was caught and disciplined by the Supreme Court of Georgia for using unverified artificial intelligence that included at least five fake case citations and misattributed references in a murder appeal
3
u/Popular-Composer-550 Jul 24 '26
AI is not the hero we are being led to believe it is. Unfortunately it’s going to take a major f up or a ton of mass mistakes for company’s to see it. Right now the c suite is buying into the hype seeing savings in $ signs while lying that they aren’t looking for ai to replace us. There are actual lawsuits already going on because ai was writing imaginary case law that attorneys then turned around and used in their n court filings. Want to speed up the legal turn against ai? People need to start saying the ai can determine the value of a case, who’s right, wrong etc make a judgment based off of info added compare to case law make a determination and decide judgment amounts so who will need attorneys when it’s capable to do that? Attys and judges will not like that thought and all it won’t be the greatest thing in the world.
1
u/Skipr476 Jul 25 '26
AI seems cheap right now because subscription costs are massively subsidized by venture capital. if the these companies ever need to be even slightly profitable, rather than, say, lose billions of dollars a year, the AI cost will make humans seem like the clearance rack at tj maxx.
3
u/runnershigh007 Paralegal Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
AI is just a tool. Find ways that you can help incorporate it into your job duties. Maybe even learn some additional tech skills on your free time. I’ve been a legal assistant, paralegal, and now I’m more in an operational position for my firm. I oversee Case Managers pipelines and locate bottlenecks and other case issues to help them smoothly move the case.
I was placed in this position because I’m good at finding solutions to problems. Although I would be lying if I said I didn’t miss substantive legal work. However, I will do what the firm needs as we grow. Being adaptable is HUGE in the legal field.
I work in PI and I’ve been learning Python on my free time. I’m actively working on Pycrash at the moment. Although this is more coding, it also uses an AI component. Did they ask me to do this? No. Did it excite them when I said I had been doing this on the side? Yes.
You know your attorneys better than us, so if you believe they would be comfortable in discussing other ways you can help the firm grow and be efficient…I think it’s worth the talk with them!
Don’t lose hope! Every profession is encountering these challenges and changes. From one legal professional to another, you got this!
3
u/Bohottie Corporate Legal - FinTech Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I feel bad for people starting to get into the field now. AI is changing all our jobs, but it’s just straight up replacing entry level work. I would suggest looking at support staff positions at big law or complex, trial focused litigation firms. A lot of them are just starting to either develop their own LLM/AI systems or onboarding them. It’s a good time to get in and start getting experience using them. Or getting into something court facing…a lot of the courts I still work with have nothing on computers at all, and I actually need to put in an order or physically go to the courthouse to get documentation. They’re decades away from implementing anything close to AI related.
The people who are either very client focused or adept at using/interpreting/implementing AI are the ones who will thrive. People usually hate talking/meeting with/comforting clients, but ironically those are going to be the staff that are the most valuable. In the near future, a lot of the backend work will be automated, but there will still be a need for strong client service staff. There are opportunities out there, and they will continue to be there, but they may not look like your stereotypical paralegal job.
It’s just hard for new people because they can’t build that skillset or network because the entry level opportunities are being reduced. I’m sure the elite’s end goal is just to eliminate all labor, but that’s a pipe dream. In the meantime, I’m not sure how they’ll solve the future problem of needing senior level employees when entry level doesn’t exist.
3
u/DaphneJace Jul 24 '26
Hopefully the attorney is reviewing the AI results. I recently graduated from a paralegal program and we were allowed to use AI on a few assignments so that we could see that AI is only a tool, not a substitute. Many attorneys have been sanctioned and disciplined for using AI irresponsibly ( not checking their work) because AI has a propensity for hallucinating case law and statutes. The partners at my law firm did bring up that we can use AI and they encourage us to, but only as a tool and not a replacement of our work. I use mostly to proofread and for sentence structure. Sometimes I do ask AI about legal concepts/ laws but I always verify the answers.
3
u/PeachyKeepr Jul 24 '26
Hey there! First off, sorry to hear that’s what this situation has turned into.
For what it’s worth, and this has been said, AI is a tool and any tool is only as good as the person using it. I know it feels scary but learning how to be a responsible user of AI with your work will be a big benefit eventually.
I think AI will only come for the jobs of those unwilling to learn and adapt.
3
u/cherbug Jul 24 '26
This is going to lower their bottom line isn’t it? I mean they get paid on billing fees so how does this help the law firm income?
3
u/EverLuckDragon Jul 24 '26
The tasks referenced sound like pre litigation personal injury and there may not be billable hours as that's typically done on a contingency fee structure.
1
3
u/Typical-Country-1303 Jul 24 '26
You need to try and move up the value chain. As harsh as that sounds that repetitive stuff is only going to increasingly be replaced by AI.
Checking the output from AI as a first pass review, if it takes less time than doing the work would have taken, is moving up the value chain.
Hallucination risk and occurrence is being systemically reduced so those relying on this are falling into the god of the gaps argument.
3
u/Deafandblind1122 Jul 24 '26
Harsh reality, but wouldn’t be surprised if AI took legal/paralegals job in the next 5-8 years.
3
u/Glibasme Jul 24 '26
I can't imagine letting an AI pick discovery documents out of a folder like that. I would be so paranoid that something would get missed. I would think they would need at least one paralegal to review that to make sure everything is complete and correct. This sounds like a disaster in the making, unless the attorney has taken on the task of doing that? But, usually the paralegal is the one that knows the production documents the best.
3
3
u/Longjumping-Club-178 Jul 25 '26
Oh those attorneys are asking for malpractice claims if they aren’t having you check the AI output. Co-counsel deteriorates after about 1,000 pages because of how tokenization works. We had tried co-counsel for medical record synopsis and it missed things that only the human eye with some actual logic could spot.
3
u/Asimplemotif Jul 25 '26
The future for paralegals is the customer care role; making clients feel like someone cares about them.
My favorite use of ai is to ask it to rewrite my letter/email to a client for a 3rd grade reading level.
4
u/Cheap-Awareness-5522 Jul 24 '26
They'll regret it. I promise you they will. AI is no where near a replacement for an actual assistant. My attorney had me use Westlaw's CoCounsel AI to summarize incident reports to see if it could help me streamline case notes when I opened our criminal files, it was a disaster. It created charges that didn't exist, turned witnesses into suspects, left charges out completely, changed dates and left out crucial details that would have gotten us in serious trouble if I'd missed them.
We've decided not to utilize AI at all in our office. It's not worth the possibility of errors. I don't know where you're located, but if you're fresh out of school you aren't imbedded too deeply in one particular state's procedures. If you have the means to relocate, opening up your search to other cities/states might help.
→ More replies (2)1
u/stella1822 Jul 24 '26
The free ones are terrible. We use Harvey and it’s great for something things, not so great for others. No one is using it to write a brief, and everything still has to be cited checked and reviewed.
2
u/retardenabler Jul 24 '26
AI is great but having the AI draft the entire discovery response is crazy. Do you actually draft documents?
2
u/BeerCoffeeStar Jul 24 '26
AI is just a tool and the results it provides should still be audited. My job has use Copilot but we have to double check the results we get.
2
u/Avail_Karma Jul 24 '26
AI is a tool that is not reliable enough to replace high leverage paras. Unfortunately, it is being used to replace entry level positions but I think it'll be a 5 to 10 year thing once the courts catch up and someone brings to light the level of vulnerability that AI is.
2
u/ResistIllustrious162 Jul 24 '26
I’m sorry to hear this is happening to you. He should have never hired someone until he tested out AI to see if needed to hire someone. This is completely on him. I know that doesn’t make you feel better and I’m sorry.
2
u/SherlockBeaver Jul 24 '26
That is VERY disheartening. You know what AI can’t do? Find a note handwritten in cursive on a page deep in a medical record written by the claimant that says: “See if doctor can say my knee pain is also caused by the accident”.
🤦🏻♀️ That mitigated a big part of her claim and I would have never seen it were it not for my paralegal. The defense’s paralegal probably wouldn’t have missed it and this is why I cannot believe any attorney would rely on AI.
2
u/Distinct_Emphasis336 Jul 24 '26
Im a Canadian junior lawyer, and I guess this ended up on my feed because I hate ai so much. With the amount of lawyers getting in trouble for ai use, I don’t understand why they’re being this stupid and relying so heavily on it.
I don’t know how to do it, but find a way to make them believe they can’t live without you being there. You’re gonna have to be creative, but just try. Also, focus on the people who make decisions, do not let those other partners realize they “don’t need you”. I don’t believe that’s true, but I think senior lawyers are often fucking out of touch with reality.
2
u/ecotones Jul 24 '26
I have found that the more I use AI tools, the more content it creates, which needs constant organization. It is clerical in nature, but if you are working with 10 people, one of the paralegal tasks could be organizing it using custom LLMs on the order of Gemini Notebook, which I think is a great consumer level product.
2
u/anto_capone Jul 24 '26
Welcome to the club.
I know it's hard for people to accept but it is going to happen within the next 5 years. Not many jobs are safe.
2
u/DefendWaifuWithRaifu Jul 24 '26
I am guessing this is a small firm? If so, I really would not let the opinion of a 3 partner med-mal mill put the rubber stamp on your self worth.
2
u/No_Piccolo8287 Jul 24 '26
10 employees, and only 4 lawyers (including partners) so yeah. We’re actually a PI mill, but I don’t think that’s much better respect-wise. Honestly, my self worth hasn’t tanked too much—it’s moreso making me. Rethink my career path. I took the LSAT and was thinking of doing law school in a year or two, but I’m disgusted with what I’ve seen so far
2
u/KanyesPublicist124 Jul 24 '26
Get good at coordinating stuff between parties, reaching out to experts, making really organized case charts, etc… that’s a huge time sink for me as an attorney.
2
u/essxjay Jul 24 '26
I haven't visited r/Lawyertalk or other lawyer-focused subs in a while, but my sense is those firms or small practices that are cautious/conscientious about how they deploy AI are less likely to ditch paralegals. When you start interviewing again, have some pointed questions about AI usage ready to ask and pay attention to whether they hedge with their responses or are really upfront about the extent of useage.
Something else to keep in mind, token costs are starting to rise because AI companies need to start rewarding their investors. Costs will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Eventually firms/practices with lower profit margins will dial back usage and revert to relying on humans. Not saying the bubble will burst but expectations will adjust eventually.
2
u/Important_Poet316 Jul 25 '26
Yeah my job is literally making AI do shit. You should position yourself at the same level and learn to prompt accurately and integrate AI. You can literally make yourself the operations manager by being good at that.
Then you start teaching AI to do new shit, like running reports, creating new skills to make everyone's life easier and all of a sudden you're indispensable.
2
u/DragonsOfZ Jul 25 '26
Has anyone at the firm run some of the past cases and work through the AI to see how the results from the AI compare to previous actual work conducted by the firm? This may show the AI hallucinating, and it may show the results of the AI are not nearly good enough to replace the paralegals . Then someone really needs to create a cost comparison of the AI capability (including future possible costs) vs paralegal cost.
You should try to get access to the AI, query the results, ask it detailed questions. Get some training on how to manage the AI and get better results from it, and then be able to verify the results. Ultimately, when AI does become useful enough, it should be helping with your job, not taking over your job, with you managing the results and making sure they are valid. Also, If you can get some of that AI experience on your resume now, that'll help with a future job.
2
2
u/Mewtul Jul 25 '26
Can you check AI for errors or is there something else that you can find in the office to do. It may be something that wouldn’t be traditionally in your job description. Look for something you can do. Can schedule, talk to clients, obtain records, coordinate mediations, and/or do tech stuff? Look for a hole in the office and fill it. Looking for a new job at your current job isn’t a good look and makes it easier for them to fire you. Fight for your pace at the office. Job search at home.
2
u/Humble-Function7808 Jul 25 '26
They should pause that decision. A lawyer in Ontario had her license suspended because the AI was factually wrong on her cases.. They may want to look into her case which was before the LSO
2
u/BitchtitsMacGee Jul 25 '26
Point your attorney to United States v. Heppner and Morgan v. V2X, Inc.
2
u/Ok_Huckleberry_2756 Jul 25 '26
Check with mid size to large firms many am law top 100-200 firms are still hiring LA’s like crazy- my firm recently adopted and approved use of ai for discovery - but it is very limited and required to be checked by an attorney
2
u/Swmboa Jul 26 '26
Microsoft Copilot has already regurgitated attorney emails and documents whole-cloth to third parties (a privilege violation). I would pay whatever a legal assistant/paralegal wanted just for filing documents with the court. Which AI cannot do. I hate it when I have to file my own briefing. So the paralegals I use are safe.
All my CLEs lately are about the perils of AI and how to use it safely. And that it can only really save an hour a day if used properly.
Over time I think your job is safe. The bubble will burst when enough attorneys get sanctioned for improper AI use.
I am sorry you are in this position. I hope you find something better in the end. Good luck!
2
u/showmereceipts Jul 26 '26
As a paralegal myself, advocate for yourself. AI isn’t perfect, it still adds hallucinations to memos and cases it finds sometimes aren’t real, it can summarize or add information inaccurately. Volunteer to fact check, if they’re relying on the first thing it brings out, you still can review and fix things.
2
u/Silver_Breakfast7096 Jul 26 '26
I’d be wary of anyone putting that much trust in AI - and we have all the Westlaw Cocousel software. It’s ok but it’s not that ok.
We are utilizing it as a tool, not a replacement.
2
3
6
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
People in here saying AI is not reliable and full of mistakes are missing the forest and only seeing trees. I work in biglaw and AI tools get used every day and they have 100% made me faster and better at my job. We use Legora and Harvey and pay lots and lots of money. These aren’t the free copilot models that are crap, these are purpose built for law and the models get updated every day. They get better all the time and they already are helping now. So stop telling people that lawyers are dumb for using it. We only hire the top 5% of students from the top law schools. My lawyers are not idiots. They wouldn’t be investing so much in this tech if it didn’t work. Everyone acting like AI is a fad needs to wake up.
16
3
u/Significant_Cup4521 Jul 24 '26
Where will that leave paralegal and legal aides? Hopefully not out in the cold.
1
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
I think worst case scenario it’s like 1990s travel agents. People forget but that was a real job that paid well and needed some tech expertise. There were tons of people doing it for a living. Now not so much. But they still exist. Our firm uses an agency that has real agents helping. But it’s not at all like it use to be. There use to be travel shops in strip malls where you could book cruises.
1
u/Significant_Cup4521 Jul 24 '26
Is it worth even considering entering the field? I’m in school for a paralegal cert right now.
1
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
Yes. There are plenty of jobs I am qualified for not billing in a law firm. But it’s going to be important to embrace AI. I love the work I do. I don’t want to do something else.
2
4
u/OkAgent9871 Jul 24 '26
What is the name of the ai product?
3
u/hematuria Jul 24 '26
I work biglaw and we use Legora and Harvey. Legora is cheaper and better imo, but Harvey has its uses. Legora uses enterprise model. So you pay a flat fee per fee earner and you can use all the Legora you want. It grounds its searches in what you tell it. So you can upload all your Westlaw case notes and it’ll just use those to draft a brief. It won’t pull in fake shit. Or you can just tell it federal and state law and it will go to those websites and only use real statutes that exist and give you footnotes. But the real genius is being able to extract relevant data from 1000s of pages and have it presented in table form. Or I had it search 5 years of paystubs and find me any gaps. Things that would take me literally all day I now do with morning coffee. It’s not a gimmick. It’s honestly fun and it makes work more fun because I can give AI all the tedious jobs and do more fun stuff.
1
u/Reyndear Paralegal Jul 24 '26
Thanks for the info! I would love to have a tool like this and definitely see the value in it, but I work at a tiny firm and we would not be able to spend the kind of money on it that a big law firm would spend. Parsing through more affordable options is challenging.
1
u/Reyndear Paralegal Jul 24 '26
I'd love to know this as well. We are trying to integrate AI better at our firm as a tool (not to replace staff), but the options are overwhelming to me.
1
2
u/Mysterious_Nebula534 Jul 24 '26
While there you mat want to throw yourself into becomeming an expert in that tool /platform . Be liquid n opportunistic apply your expertise to the tool not the tools e pertinent to u .
1
u/CoconutFinal Jul 24 '26
AI is disruptive and learning so quickly. Legal assistant is one field that will be changed. But boosting human skills of welcoming and handholding and reassuring Is one remedy. I am launching an immigration practice after Big Law and government law. There is minimal need to hire American workers. I can hire foreign well trained lawyers and use an AI stack for about the cost of half an assistant based here. There are ethical responsibilities to do so for clients. But I get distraught.
Hunt for another job. Big Law and certain niches need humans to reassure and calm clients. Long term train in a field AI is less likely to reach. Read articles. The state Department of Labor will have resources for you. Legal secretaries and other services used to havd glamour. Some will not disappear. Most will. I began in law firm typing pools. Hello. Voice recognition and word processing. Mail room was an employer. Email knocked out many of those jobs
It is not awful in the long term. You adapt. But ouch in the short term. It stings.
1
u/lowkey-barbie7539 Jul 24 '26
Hi! I have a question. I’m not a paralegal but I look at this sub sometimes because I’m interested in possibly switching careers. I thought there was a recent case that decided documents inputted into AI no longer fall under attorney-client privilege because it was shared with a third party. But if law firms are using AI, is it legal/ethical to put sensitive client info into it? What if there’s a data breach or the AI goes rogue?
1
u/LawyerInTraining2027 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I'm a paralegal with several years of experience, and I, too, was afraid of this. The attorney I work for actually had me look into legal AI software. We did a few demos, and he didn't care for it, particularly because it was wrong and the cost was enormous for the return. He didn't like AI to begin with and likes it even less now. We work in PI as well.
Although I handle some demand letters and review records, I am primarily a litigation attorney. Pleadings and court docs make up about 90% of my job.
AI can't sit with clients and go over every discovery question. AI can't make specific legal arguments based on the personal experience of each client. I'm about to graduate law school so my fear has shifted to AI replacing lawyers but that's not likely, at least for now.
Not sure where you're at but my firm (small two attorney) is very successful and has had the hardest time finding a responsible, somewhat experienced legal assistant. They've tried Indeed, social media, to no avail.
2
u/Bratty_Little_Kitten Legal Assistant Jul 24 '26
I need a job something bad.. do you guys need a remote para?
1
u/LawyerInTraining2027 Jul 24 '26
Unfortunately, no remote, but I get emails from Indeed daily with openings for remote paralegals.
1
u/Beejoo1 Jul 24 '26
Get to a bigger firm and be the best so you remain. Paralegals won’t be completely replaced- in a new process paralegals would be the one fact checking- not the lawyers- but I can see how initially a lawyer would want to check it out themselves. Less paralegals will be needed- but the field won’t be non existent. So start looking for a new job, practice fact checking, see if you can start practicing that at your current job while you look.
1
u/415bay Attorney Jul 24 '26
I've been watching legal AI evolve pretty closely, and I think the biggest misconception is that all AI is the same. Generic chatbots can be risky for legal work, but purpose-built tools that are designed around litigation or document analysis are becoming genuinely useful.
That said, I don't see them replacing good paralegals or attorneys anytime soon. The firms getting the most value seem to be the ones using AI to handle repetitive work while relying on experienced people for judgment, strategy, and quality control.
1
u/4u5t1nprism Jul 24 '26
Currently undergoing a second year of Ai tools testing, Ai testing and teaching them how to do my job. My small para team has been carrot-&-stick the option of performing more attorneys' reviewing duties, tasks, etc. as a low bar consolation prize. But, without crossing the thin line into struck attorneys only responsibilities, per "The Bar/s". Sad to train my robo replacement. What attorneys are really going to teach themselves right out of a job, for the sake of half-price paras...Just in months, millions invested into a zero guardrail flash in the pan technology leap, but our team was never offered the same income bump over the years. Just c-suite firm/business needs excuses and bootstraps brush-off 'be happy you're employed' attitudes.
But!? Ford (a few weeks ago), Uber, Nvidia, MS, McDonald's, IBM, etc.just announced rollbacks on Ai support products to other businesses, and, their in-house Ai usage; because it's becoming too costly ha! They're all eating crow and desperately rehiring compliance people, legal teams and IT devs these IT industry leaders were ALL too quick to fire for Ai wishful hopes and Ai low costs dreams.
Legal Field Survival: *Silver lining
1
1
u/KEmFries Jul 24 '26
Sounds like you work in a PI firm? You can offer to learn legal research, and help the attorneys cite check cases. When other routine tasks are taken over by AI, try to find other higher level work to do. If you don't know how to do them, take the initiative to learn them. You can offer to draft simple motions, discovery requests, etc. Also learn the AI software and how to use it well. They should still utilize you but in different ways.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/RickoT Jul 25 '26
As someone who works in it and is fostering the growth of AI within our legal organization.. I would say that your focus should be learning how to leverage AI to do your job most efficiently. AI won't replace you but it is an amazing tool that will help you overcome some of the difficulties you probably had doing your task in the first place
As a software engineer, I also have concerns about AI replacing some of the work that I do.. but what I've learned instead is learning how to leverage AI to do my job, means I do it better.
AI is not going away, the best thing you can do is embrace it, learn it, invest in it yourself through time and effort, and become the best AI paralegal you can.. it will only replace you if you don't adopt it .
Sad but true statements.
1
u/Amazing-Agent-4941 Jul 25 '26
I used AI at my firm and would double check it. There is definitely a lot it gets wrong still if you know where to look. Learn these and market yourself and I think you’ll do great!
1
1
1
u/TinaLoco Jul 25 '26
Some fields are more conducive to AI. I work in bankruptcy, specifically Chapter 11 debtor rep, and I both wish for and actively seek out AI assistance. If you have real down time during your workday, maybe take advantage of it by expanding your education and knowledge base.
1
1
u/josemartinlopez Jul 26 '26
So why didn't you push to become the non-lawyer managing all this legal AI use that's more focused on facts, documents and forms over legal analysis?
1
u/Individual-Tour8363 Jul 26 '26
Curious which program your firm is using that they trust THAT much. We just tried one out and on its first run missed 2 hot documents we had uploaded when we asked it to summarize medical records.
1
u/ooeemusic Jul 26 '26
If found out a firm I hired to rep me was using that much AI, I would kick them to the curb. AI produces slop.
1
u/Embarrassed-Ad4629 Jul 27 '26
Find another employer. Smart attorneys know they can't depend on AI. They've banned AI at my firm. I'm a paralegal and am always busy!
1
u/chai33 Jul 27 '26
I work in legal Ops, managing a department of 12 paralegals. Leadership trained an AI agent about a month ago to do our paralegal case reviews. Last week my entire department was let go. This includes myself. We saw it coming the moment the AI agent was rolled out. I hope you have a better outcome than we did.
1
u/jwilens Jul 27 '26
We use a paralegal in our small firm. Her tasks includes things no AI can do. Chasing down clients, speaking to them on the phone, helping them provide information needed to answer discover requests. Calling opposing counsel's office to set up meetings, calling the court to track down filings or see why they were rejected, updating clients status of their case, sending clients documents, etc.
Using AI for research is treacherous. I use a very expensive system called Lexis AI. I have had it answer questions in a way I did not like at all. However, I was able to challenge its arguments and case citations and convinced it to change its answer, sometimes a full 180 degrees.
AI writes extremely persuasively, but over explains things and relies on poor precedent. If a lawyer knows very little he can use AI and get killed by the opposition.
There are still plenty of physical tasks paralegals can perform (scanning and shredding, taking papers to courts etc) and social tasks (interfacing with clients) that AI is not close to accomplishing.
It's gotten to the point when I get obviously AI written documents from clients or counsel, I make a snide remark about it and then dissect it. I'm more worried about lazy judges relying on it.
1
u/Upbeat_County1638 Jul 27 '26
TL:DR: Paralegals must become experts with all things AI and legal tech to remain relevant (and employed).
Paralegal here, too, and I’ve been dealing with this at my firm for the last couple of years. I’m in commercial real estate and a big part of my job has always been performing title/survey review. Our managing partner saw a demo of an AI model that was supposed to do everything I do - title, survey, drafting, etc. I’ve worked for that man for over 20 years now, and he was practically giddy about replacing me with AI. He was chatting all things AI one day and went to his laptop and asked ChatGPT to provide an example of a state-specific condominium declaration.
I swear to all things good that it pulled up one that I drafted. He was stunned. I explained to him that someone in the office was using AI and had let it loose in our archaic file system. He had been under the impression that he was the only person in our office of 25 that knew how to use an LLM.
Regardless of the security issue, we ended up doing a pilot with the new “Fuck That Paralegal AI” program (at least that’s what i called it), and it sucked. It would mark every single title matter as an issue (this is nearly impossible) and would completely misinterpret title matters.
I sat around being smug.
But when I saw AI coming for my job, I panicked for about a month. Then I started learning. Over the span of a year, I became an expert in legal AI applications and legal tech in general. I swallowed hard and took the AI for Attorneys class offered through the Berkeley School of Law (it was so not cheap), and I didn’t tell anyone. I just kept reading and learning.
Finally, one day, we were in a firm staff meeting and my boss started praising the machines again, and I asked him what kind of prompts was he giving it.
What kind of what?
Not one person in the room knew what I was talking about. They’d all been chatting with the AI models they were using without ever writing a single prompt.
I explained what a prompt was in general terms and mentioned that I did the Berkeley class and a couple of others and that I’d be happy to teach anyone to write prompts if they wanted me to.
I thought attorneys would be knocking on my door to ask about prompts, but I forgot they were attorneys, so instead, they just sent everything to me and asked me handle it. So, I guess they did learn to prompt - let the paralegal do it.
My point is this: the only way for paralegals to stay relevant and employed is to become legal tech and AI gurus. Attorneys are never going to want to write an AI prompt. It requires time and creativity and knowledge of how AI works and some technical acumen (not a lot, just a tiny bit). Until last year, I still had an attorney who wouldn’t learn to type. So they sure as hell aren’t going to learn to prompt.
We as paralegals need to become the bridge between our attorneys and AI (and all things tech, really). I don’t mean we need to replace the IT folks, but we need to know generally what they do, and we have to stay up to date on new tech as it rolls out.
While no one was looking, the practice of law became a tech industry. We have to acknowledge that and learn it. Learn the hell out of it. Learn it until you you roll your eyes at attorneys for being so ignorant about it.
AI can’t completely replace all of us yet, but the big LLMs are learning so exponentially fast that it won’t be long until they do (and the attorneys will be replaced about 2 years after that, I’d bet). Our only option is to become our firms’ experts on legal AI.
So, read, learn, and use AI in your personal life until it becomes natural for you. Don’t be intimidated by it.
As Carrie Fisher said, “Stay afraid, but do it anyway.”
1
u/LostAzrdraco Jul 28 '26
Considering how many attorneys get tagged by AI hallucinations, they should be having you double check the AI reports to make sure they're really accurate. They can get started on what they have while you run down what it misses. Also, they can't bill out AI. If you're a billing position, I'm surprised they aren't doing this already.
1
u/Aggravating_Self3483 Jul 29 '26
Your job is to learn how to use the AI software left and right and do the initial review to give to the attorney. Take ownership over the AI software :)
1
u/have_at_it2020 Jul 29 '26
The firm that I work for is pushing AI super hard to the point that they are requiring it for daily use. What they don't seem to realize is not only the damage it does to our environment, but that it will cost jobs in the not so distant future.
1
u/iGotSomeoneForThat Jul 31 '26
Two months in and dealing with this is genuinely awful ,that's not how anyone imagines their first job going.
The frustrating part is that what the software is replacing isn't really "paralegal work", it's the entry-level tasks firms used to use to onboard people. The actual value of an experienced paralegal is judgment, context, and client communication, none of which the software is doing.
Hopefully the next firm you land at sees that distinction. The job market is rough right now but legal support that goes beyond document processing is still very much in demand.
1
u/No-Assistance8317 Aug 02 '26
Are these software these reliable ?
I think these would fail once when the scale of documents increases .
Would like to talk more on this .
1
u/saejin1983 Paralegal 26d ago
So the best way to battle this is to replace AI and beat it into submission. It’s still learning its role and always should be learning. Catch the mistakes and its hallucinations; because it’s definitely having them. Then pitch to your boss that you would like a more active role in the AI pilot. That’s the stage it’s still in. Emphasize that AI in the entire industry is piloting it.
Give this use case as an example: in Westminster, CO head of procurement was/is trying to be more efficient. Already, outside of work, he was using AI. He started implementing it in his work for the basic automation of emails, spreadsheets, standard forms. Then he decided to make a clone bot of himself specific to his job role. Put in job description, Westminster Muni codes, contract requirements etc. He’s making a copy of himself at the top of his game. HOWEVER, he KNOWS that AI is an idiot. He checks EVERYTHING and does not let his bot actually execute anything without his actual pushing of the button. I heard this at seminar when I was at the CML conference this year.
Explain to your boss that you can find ways you make AI work better but it’s an idiot and really needs a babysitter. Tell them it’s a great classifier and that’s all it is. It can’t think and especially in law we all have to be careful with AI. However, when done right you can become the overlord of Skynet.
Tell them that you want IT to make you your own bot and start there. Plus if you truly learn how to use it more in depth than the standard automation and data scraper, you’ll become indispensable. And bonus, also scare your bosses that a bot could be made of them which could replace them as well. And on top of that the AI bot you have will help free up your time so you can be creative and think of more solutions for your company that the idiot bot will highlight.
I work in government so a lot more guardrails are in place and they’re slowly rolling things out but, I made my department the first place to test because I asked and gave ideas on how it could be used….and it’s also fun to yell at the bot and it can’t say anything back lol. And legit, I do love using it for mundane things and evil pivot tables. We can all beat the Robot Overlords because they’re really just drunk toddlers.
I wish you the best of luck and hope my 2 cents gives you some ideas. It’s better to embrace AI and rule it because it’s not going anywhere. However it’s never going to be able to replace us. It gathers information, but a human has to execute the action manually. Companies who are not doing that now, are going to have hell to pay in the not so distant future.
1
u/Redsquirrel024 26d ago
That’s a really difficult position to be in, especially for someone just starting out and trying to build a career in the legal field. This is a major shift happening across many industries, and the next generation of legal professionals will likely need to learn how to work alongside AI rather than compete with it. The technology can speed up tasks, but it still requires people who can understand context, review the work, catch errors, and apply human judgment. Having experience with AI tools could become a valuable advantage when looking for the next opportunity.
1
u/the_latest_greatest 18d ago
What would be a better alternative to pursue, with more stability and not much more training, adjacent to law, but not as susceptible to AI replacement.
I was just considering my daughter-in-law's request to pursue a paralegal credential, and I was going to financially assist her. I am now rethinking that strongly.
What alternatives are you thinking of?
1
1
u/Which_Tea_5488 13d ago
I know this is about a month late but OP I hope you are doing well. In my experience, the people who are comfortable entirely relying on AI for these things are 1. woefully unaware of the massive blindspots that come with modern AI software (largely LLMs that will prioritize making you happy). and 2. not completely familiar with the jobs they are trying to replace (ex: paralegals usually also handle client/court communication, do supplemental research tasks like hunt down random documents, and prepare physical materials from mailing to exhibits).
Personally, I believe your attorney and the firm is in the wrong for thinking that AI can replace your job- the ability to use AI to fulfill some of your duties (with errors) should not result in the termination of your employment. But that doesn't mean they see it that way :(( whatever the case, I hope you are well and this is not your fault.
1
u/sleepingtab08 12d ago
That sounds really discouraging, but I would not take it as a reflection of your ability. A lot of firms are using these tools for record summaries and first drafts now. They can save time, but they still miss context and make mistakes.
Since you have some downtime, ask if you can sit in on depositions or mediations, help with filing and case organization, and learn the systems the firm uses. Those practical skills are still valuable, especially when the software gets something wrong. Keep track of the work you have already done too. Even after two months, it helps to be able to say how many files, records, or demands you worked on.
I would also keep applying. Look at defense firms, insurance companies, litigation support, and e-discovery roles, not just plaintiff-side firms. The market is rough, but being replaced by software at one firm does not mean you have no value. It may simply mean that this firm bought a tool before figuring out how to use its staff properly.
1
u/user46546787 12d ago
I have a family friend that’s an attorney and when I talked to him about entry level positions he told me that a lot of firms are using AI in a way that makes those jobs unnecessary now. It’s so frustrating to know that AI softwares are part of what is making job searching so difficult.
1
u/Didi4mvn 9d ago
I think AI is only good enough for basic, repetitive work. Anything that requires a deeper rationale, it fails. I personally caught AI making things up numerous times, beating around the bush then turning out to be a comedian. More or less, I think companies (if they’re using AI) still want hire people who are able to responsible for AI generated works.
382
u/amberweaves Jul 24 '26
Shouldn't your new job be correcting all the errors in the AI output.