PROFESSIONALISM CORNER
PROFESSIONALISM CORNER
The Legal Profession at a Crossroads: Artificial Intelligence, Transformation, and the End of Denial
MARK R. OSHEROW
“ Over the next decade, advances in artificial intelligence will mean that humans will no longer be needed for most things in the world.”
— Bill Gates, 2024
When Bill Gates issued this blunt statement, many professionals recoiled. The suggestion that humans would become unnecessary for " most things " was, for some, dystopian. But for the legal industry— a profession long considered uniquely insulated from technological upheaval— the remark struck a nerve not because it was radical, but because it felt increasingly familiar. The truth is that we are already watching this transformation unfold. The question is not whether AI will redefine law practice— it is how soon, how thoroughly, and who will lead or lag behind.
For many lawyers, particularly those in litigation, the instinctive response has been denial. Whether by underestimating AI’ s capabilities or clinging to traditional notions of lawyering as a deeply human art, this denial has persisted far longer than it should. But that era is over. Artificial intelligence is no longer a curious aid at the margins— it is now embedded in the core operations of modern law. And courts, clients, and even rules of procedure are adapting accordingly.
Across Florida and the broader federal landscape, AI is not just streamlining tasks. It is performing them outright. Lawyers are already using machine learning to, among many other things, draft motions, conduct discovery, summarize deposition and trial transcripts, model judicial behavior, generate voir dire outlines, draft opening and closing statements, and forecast litigation outcomes. These are not speculative functions— they are in active use in trial courts, in mediation preparation, and in complex commercial litigation. As Gates has said more broadly, the changes AI will bring to the white-collar world will be " as big as the PC, as big as the internet," and lawyers will not be exempt.
In Florida, the legal system has pivoted decisively toward a framework that assumes technological fluency. The recent overhaul of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, effective January 1, 2025, reflects this shift. These amendments were not just technical— they represent a new procedural philosophy grounded in proportionality, early case management, and structured disclosure. The Florida Supreme Court’ s incorporation of language from Federal Rule 26( b)( 1) into Rule 1.280 signals a clear expectation that lawyers will use technology— especially AI— to manage discovery in a proportional, targeted, and transparent manner. The rules now require specificity in objections, accountability in withholding responsive documents, and proactive disclosure of witnesses and documents— all tasks that align naturally with the use of artificial intelligence tools.
Chief Justice John Roberts has emphasized that the legal system must respond to emerging technologies with both openness and caution. In his 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Roberts noted,“ The legal profession is not known for moving fast, but it must not fall behind." That cautionary insight carries particular weight today. Falling behind is no longer a matter of comfort or convenience— it is a professional liability.
Indeed, failure to adopt available technology can already rise to the level of an ethical breach. The American Bar Association’ s Model Rule 1.1 on Competence, and Florida’ s adoption of Rule 4-1.1, both now include the requirement that lawyers remain current with“ the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Courts have interpreted this obligation to encompass e-discovery tools, data analytics, and AIpowered document review. Lawyers who ignore these tools may well soon find themselves on the wrong side of discovery disputes, malpractice claims, or judicial sanctions.
But AI is not merely a compliance issue. It is becoming the strategic differentiator between firms that thrive and those that fade. Consider trial preparation.
What once took weeks of junior associate labor— assembling deposition summaries, preparing exhibits, identifying impeachment material— is now condensed into minutes by AI engines trained on prior transcripts and document caches. In voir dire, firms are apparently deploying natural language processing to analyze prospective juror questionnaires, flag bias patterns, and model likely panel compositions. At trial, some litigators are using real-time AI transcription and annotation tools to adjust cross-examination on the fly based on witness deviations from earlier statements.
This level of augmentation does not diminish the role of the trial lawyer. It enhances it. As legal futurist Richard Susskind has argued,“ The question is not whether computers can replace lawyers. It’ s whether lawyers can do their jobs better with computers.” The answer, increasingly, is yes— especially when the stakes involve complex facts, voluminous data, or tight procedural timelines. And in that environment, human lawyers must shift from task-performers to strategic overseers. The future belongs to those who can supervise machines, verify their outputs, integrate them into broader litigation strategy, and explain their use to clients and courts.
( Continued on next page)
Get the latest legal news, upcoming events, and important announcements delivered to your inbox. Subscribe today and stay informed, connected, and ahead of the curve in the ever-evolving legal landscape.
Sign-up today by visiting: www. palmbeachbar. org
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 19