Guus Kruseman

Recently, Microsoft published a study on the impact of AI on various professions. The legal sector ranks 14th out of 22 – relatively safe. As a lawyer, you might breathe a sigh of relief. But those who look beyond the ranking see a potential risk lurking within.

As a headhunter in the legal sector, I see this reassurance daily. Fear of replacement barely exists among lawyers. This is understandable – the market is still tight, and AI primarily makes their current work easier. But this complacency concerns me.

‍

What Microsoft Does and Doesn't Measure

Microsoft's research analyzes 200,000 conversations with Bing Copilot in 2024. It shows how AI is currently being used, not how it will transform the legal sector. As the researchers themselves warn: "Our measurement of AI applicability is only a snapshot in time... the technology itself will continue to evolve."

What this data does NOT show: the use of specialized legal AI tools like Harvey or Saga Legal, which are already being deployed for due diligence, contract analysis, and legal research. These tools aren't captured in Microsoft's general user data, but they do exist. And they're getting better every day.

‍

Harvard's Nuanced Reality

Relevant in this context is the research Harvard published in February among 10 of the largest law firms in the United States (AmLaw100 Firms). Law firms are indeed seeing dramatic productivity gains – in some cases more than 100 times faster than traditional work. A complaint response that normally took 16 hours is now handled in 3-4 minutes.

The thinking is that AI creates more space for strategic work, thus keeping the billable hour model intact. Instead of 80% analysis and 20% strategy, that ratio would be reversed. But this thinking rests on an important assumption: that sufficient strategic work remains available for every firm, and that clients will continue to rely on traditional law firms for this.

For specialized boutique firms and international big law firms, this may be obvious. But many firms rely heavily on standard work – precisely the type of activities first affected by automation.

‍

The Real Threat Comes from Outside

The current classic revenue model makes true efficiency a double-edged sword for many firms. Why would you, as a partner, make large investments that could threaten your own billing model?

But meanwhile, this is happening: Garfield in the UK became the first AI-driven platform to receive permission to provide certain legal services – an early example of new building blocks in the sector. Legal tech platforms are attracting significant investments from tech investors. Google Ventures, for example, has invested tens of millions in Harvey and (legal tech startup) Lawhive. And increasingly, clients are experimenting with AI systems for legal questions themselves.

This is crucial: a common counterargument is that factors like human trust and ethical nuances make the lawyer's role irreplaceable. But this is a dangerous underestimation of changing client demand. Clients no longer want hour-long processes, but quick, accurate, and cost-effective solutions. Their loyalty lies not with the method, but with the result. And however human or relational legal work may be – once AI shows more convincing results, clients will embrace it.

‍

My Prediction: Shift Toward Direct AI Service Delivery

In the longer term, I see a future where a large portion of traditional legal services will be delivered directly by AI – especially routine and standard work. Complex litigation and strategic advice will naturally require human judgment for now. But even this domain isn't immune: as AI improves in abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and contextual analysis, shifts will occur here too.

Moreover, we must realize that much of the revenue for many firms doesn't come from this top segment, but from the volume of work that's now under pressure.

The building blocks are already there, and the pace at which they're being stacked is accelerating. Those who think that current limited AI use in legal practice means there are still years of leeway underestimate how quickly developments can unfold. While firms still cling to the existing model, others are already building alternative forms of legal service delivery.

‍

Preparation Strategy for the Medium Term

For law firms: It pays to invest in AI implementation now – not to replace lawyers, but to make them more effective. Firms that don't integrate AI risk becoming less attractive to both clients and talent. Don't see it only as efficiency improvement, but as preparation for a fundamentally different way of service delivery.

For individual lawyers: Learn to work with AI. Soon this will be a basic requirement, just like Word and LegalIntelligence. Develop your emotional intelligence and strengthen your analytical thinking. You'll have less time to study material because AI does the preliminary work, but you must advise at a higher level. Also try to become more involved in strategic decisions and client contact within your current role; aspects that are currently hardest to automate, but whose advantage may diminish over time.

‍

The Reality for Headhunters

Paradoxically, I barely see this urgency reflected in concrete recruitment questions yet. The labor market shortage is still so severe that firms don't yet have the luxury of selecting based on criteria like 'AI-readiness' when hiring experienced staff. Moreover, what an 'AI-ready' lawyer actually is hasn't yet crystallized.

And therein lies the opportunity. This is the perfect time for preparation. You're early to the trends, not late. Lawyers who invest in these new skills now create an advantage that won't be catchable later.

The lawyers using Microsoft's data to lean back? They're going to struggle. The lawyers who see this data as evidence they have time to prepare? They'll become the market leaders of the coming years.

‍

Conclusion

The question isn't whether legal services will change, but how quickly and who will be ready for it.

These shifts in the legal sector also change what talent firms need – and what skills lawyers must develop. Do you see these trends in your practice, or do you have questions about how to prepare your firm or career for this? I'm happy to think along about the implications for your specific situation.

Contact Guus Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman via guus@kruseman.nl.