AI all around us in our daily lives, from social media algorithms and streaming services to navigation and text processing. But AI is also playing an increasingly prominent role in many areas of our professional lives. We hear that AI is going to change everything and eventually take over many jobs, but is that the case? What does this mean for legal practice, and what does it mean for the lawyers of the future? Evert Stamhuis, Professor of Law and Innovation at Erasmus School of Law, tells us more about technological optimism, de-skilling, the essence of a lawyer, and the opportunity to develop professionally whilst keeping a cool head.
Is AI changing the way lawyers are educated?
At a time when AI is playing an increasingly prominent role in our work, the question arises as to whether a ‘traditional’ law degree is still sufficient in today’s job market. This touches on a deeper issue concerning the essence of professionals, their field of expertise and the skills associated with it. It also raises questions about the role educational institutions play in educating the professionals of the future. How can major societal developments be taken into account, even when there is still much uncertainty about their impact?
Stamhuis explains: “The division of responsibilities for educating good lawyers varies, depending on time and place. Law Schools and professional organisations in the Netherlands have long worked together to fulfil this role. One could therefore argue that a law degree alone has never been sufficient. The question is to what extent a changing professional practice, driven by a growing range of IT applications, necessitates a shift in what law schools contribute. About five or six years ago, Erasmus School of Law already accepted that doing nothing was not an option. In the Legal Academic Skills programme, small modules were then gradually introduced that expose law students to forms of digitalisation that are relevant to legal practice. However, this does not mean that all law programmes should promote mastery of legal AI as a core task.”
Human versus machine is a flawed premise
AI is taking over more and more routine work; in legal practice, too, it is being used for tasks such as text processing and refinement. Although the use of AI can have advantages, this development in legal practice also appears to be causing delays, as lawyers are struggling with a large volume of AI-generated legal documents. Does this create tension between the human touch and the added value of AI applications? Stamhuis explains: “Pitting human skills and AI against each other is not the right way to look at it. It is a human skill to use (new) technology to make a contribution to society, whilst ensuring that the technology serves this contribution as effectively as possible. ‘As effectively as possible’ may mean striving for efficiency, but also anticipating the potential dominance of technology, dependency and de-skilling. For a construction worker, an electric nail gun is a great tool, but in certain situations on site it may be unsuitable, unavailable or too expensive. So they still need to learn how to use a hammer, screwdriver and chisel. The range of AI tools challenges us in the legal sector to reassess what our hammers, chisels and screwdrivers are, and what the equivalent of the electric nail gun is.”
What skills are essential for the lawyers of the future?
There are concerns about growing dependence on AI and the loss of essential skills (de-skilling). Stamhuis discusses the risk of dependence on AI during the learning process: “This issue is not exclusive to law programmes, but applies to all education. In recent months, I have seen increasing attention being paid to the effect that the use of GenAI could have on the learning process. I currently subscribe to the theory that, in order to learn something, resistance must be overcome. That won’t happen if GenAI does the job for you. As long as we expect that a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes must be acquired for the proper practice of the profession, we must maintain tasks without GenAI during the course of study.”
According to Stamhuis, only time will tell what impact the use of AI will have on so-called de-skilling, but he emphasises that lawyers’ focus on society is and will remain indispensable: “In a few years’ time, we will have learned which skills of a lawyer are indispensable in the practice of AI-supported legal services and which are supplementary. At present, that is still a matter of speculation. It will always be crucial to keep your focus on the role of the law in society and to allow that to determine the choice of supporting tools time and again. This also implies a duty for lawyers to continue pursuing that goal. That strikes me as rather complicated given the prevailing pressure of technological optimism.”
Master of Law (&Tech)
Within this spectrum of possibilities, technological optimism and uncertainty regarding the long-term impact of these technological developments, students can choose how deeply they wish to delve into the world of Legal AI. Stamhuis explains the unique approach of the Law & Technology Master’s programme: “Our Law & Technology Master’s programme has been developed for those students who are keen not to be passive observers but to be frontrunners. The aim of our Master’s programme is to cultivate mastery in the fields of law and technology. This entails fostering a critical yet constructive attitude towards law, and towards technology within the legal profession. To develop this attitude, a considerable technical understanding of AI applications is required, covering design, development and use. By building an AI application themselves whilst maintaining a critical perspective, students achieve that master’s level.”
But it is certainly not necessary for all students to venture into designing an AI application: “Our education in the Law & Tech Master’s programme is certainly at the forefront, but it is wise to keep a cool head and not devote all one’s attention to every passing hype. The contribution of law to society is not a hype, even though that contribution is subject to changes in society.”
Build your toolkit for the future
When asked how he sees education developing and whether (legal) AI will become a standard component of all study programmes, Stamhuis replies: “I do see that happening in a way. I cannot reliably predict what that will look like. I assume that we will always continue to educate lawyers.” Finally, Stamhuis makes an important point about the responsible use of AI and its role in the toolkit of the lawyers of the future: “In my reference to the construction worker’s toolkit, this involves using expertise and a strong skillset to critically assess which solution best fits a problem. It is never a good thing when a technological solution goes looking for a problem. Sooner or later, that will prove harmful, both to those directly involved and to people and the planet.”
- Professor
- Related content
- Related education
