AI may change legal work - but it will not eliminate the need for judgement
- Christopher Eddison-Cogan
- May 28
- 6 min read
As artificial intelligence reshapes professional work, many students and parents are asking whether law remains a worthwhile career. The answer may depend less on memorising rules and more on developing judgement, strategic thinking and the ability to navigate human complexity.
Why studying law still matters in the age of AI
Artificial intelligence is changing professional life at extraordinary speed. Tasks that once required teams of junior staff can now be completed in seconds. Documents can be summarised instantly. Legal research can be generated conversationally. Contracts can be drafted automatically. Predictive systems are increasingly capable of identifying patterns across enormous quantities of information.
Unsurprisingly, many students and parents are beginning to ask difficult questions about the future of the legal profession.
Is law still a worthwhile career?
Will lawyers still be needed?
And if artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable of analysing legal information, what exactly will remain for human lawyers to do?
These are serious questions. They deserve more thoughtful answers than either technological panic or professional denial.
Like many lawyers, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about what artificial intelligence may mean for the future of the profession. I do not view AI with fear, nor do I dismiss its significance. Quite the opposite. I find it genuinely fascinating and already use it regularly within professional work, particularly as a tool for research, analysis, idea development and improving efficiency.
Alongside legal practice, I have also been involved in the design and development of legal software, so I have a longstanding interest in how technology reshapes professional services and decision-making. In many respects, I believe AI will significantly improve aspects of legal work.
But the more I have reflected on it - and the more I have observed clients engaging with these technologies themselves - the more strongly I have come to believe something else:
As information becomes more accessible, judgement may become more valuable rather than less.
The misconception about what lawyers actually do
Public discussion about AI and law often focuses on the visible mechanics of legal work:
reviewing documents,
researching cases,
drafting contracts,
analysing legislation,
or processing procedural steps.
Artificial intelligence is already becoming highly capable in many of these areas. It would be unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Some aspects of legal work are likely to change substantially over the coming decade. But in my experience, the deeper work of law has never simply been about retrieving information.
Much of legal practice involves:
assessing risk,
understanding personalities,
navigating conflict,
balancing competing objectives,
negotiating outcomes,
anticipating consequences,
exercising judgement under uncertainty,
and helping people make decisions during stressful or emotionally charged situations.
Those are not merely technical exercises.
A divorce may involve financial law, but it also involves children, grief, fear, identity and long-term family relationships.
A shareholder dispute is rarely only about company documents. It often concerns trust, communication breakdown and competing visions for the future of a business.
Probate disputes frequently emerge from family dynamics that pre-date the legal issue itself by decades.
Employment disputes may involve humiliation, anxiety, reputation and economic insecurity as much as contractual rights.
AI can assist with information. Human beings still have to live with consequences.
AI may change legal work - but not necessarily reduce the value of lawyers
Historically, many professions assumed their value lay primarily in technical complexity. Yet technological change often reveals that the deeper value of a profession was something else all along.
Calculators did not eliminate mathematics.
GPS did not eliminate navigational judgement.
Medical imaging software did not eliminate experienced clinicians.
Similarly, AI may reduce the amount of time lawyers spend on repetitive procedural work without eliminating the need for experienced legal advisors.
Better informed clients are not making lawyers less relevant
One of the most interesting developments I have observed is that clients are increasingly arriving at consultations having already researched issues extensively online or through AI systems.
Far from making lawyers redundant, this often creates more sophisticated conversations.
Clients may arrive with large amounts of information. What they are usually seeking is something quite different:
prioritisation,
perspective,
strategic guidance,
risk assessment,
practical judgement,
and reassurance about the consequences of different choices.
In many ways, AI may actually make people more aware of the limits of purely informational answers.
Someone using AI may quickly discover:
multiple possible interpretations,
conflicting commentary,
procedural complications,
or uncertainty about how legal principles apply in real life.
What I increasingly observe is that better information does not necessarily simplify decision-making. Often it reveals complexity.
The key questions clients ask are rarely:“What does the law say?”
Instead, they ask:
“What matters most here?”
“What are the real risks?”
“How is this likely to play out in practice?”
“What outcome is realistically achievable?”
“What consequences might I not yet have considered?”
Those are fundamentally questions of judgement.
A technically correct answer is not always the wisest one.
That distinction matters enormously in legal practice.
Law is ultimately training in disciplined thinking
For young people considering whether to study law, I think one of the most important points is this:
A legal education is not simply training in rules. At its best, it is training in disciplined thinking.
Law teaches students to:
analyse complex information,
identify weaknesses in arguments,
assess competing interpretations,
evaluate evidence,
communicate persuasively,
understand institutional systems,
recognise unintended consequences,
and make decisions where there may be no perfect answer.
These are extraordinarily transferable intellectual skills.
In many respects, legal training sits at the intersection of:
philosophy,
psychology,
ethics,
communication,
negotiation,
strategy,
and practical decision-making.
Even outside legal practice itself, those abilities remain valuable across business, entrepreneurship, leadership, government and negotiation.
I sometimes think there is a misconception that studying law is primarily about memorising information. In reality, much of legal education involves learning how to think clearly under pressure, how to analyse competing interests and how to exercise judgement in situations where certainty is often impossible. Those skills may become more valuable rather than less in an AI-driven world.
When information becomes abundant, judgement becomes scarce.
The future profession may reward different qualities
I suspect artificial intelligence will change the structure of legal careers significantly.
Some repetitive tasks traditionally undertaken by junior lawyers may increasingly become automated or AI-assisted. The profession will evolve. But evolution is not necessarily decline.
If anything, I suspect the profession may increasingly reward precisely the qualities technology struggles most to replicate:
strategic thinking,
adaptability,
communication,
emotional intelligence,
ethical reasoning,
commercial awareness,
and sound judgement.
The lawyers who thrive in the coming decades may not simply be those who can process the greatest quantity of information. They may be those most capable of synthesising complexity, understanding people and guiding difficult decisions.
Ironically, AI may push the legal profession back toward some of its oldest foundations:
advocacy,
rhetoric,
persuasion,
negotiation,
strategic thinking,
and practical wisdom.
In that sense, the future lawyer may become less of a procedural technician and more of a strategic advisor.
Technology may reveal what was always valuable
For many years, part of professional authority rested on information asymmetry. Lawyers possessed specialist knowledge that clients could not easily access independently. AI is changing that dynamic. But as access to information becomes easier, it also becomes clearer that genuine professional expertise was never simply about possessing information.
It was about:
interpreting complexity,
applying judgement,
recognising consequences,
understanding people,
and taking responsibility for decisions.
A client may now arrive with pages of AI-generated legal analysis.
Someone still needs to decide:
which risks genuinely matter,
what can realistically be achieved,
which approach is strategically strongest,
what unintended consequences may follow,
and how legal decisions intersect with wider personal or commercial objectives.
That responsibility remains profoundly human.
Why I would still encourage thoughtful young people to study law
If a thoughtful young person asked me whether studying law still makes sense in the age of AI, my answer would be yes.
Not because I believe technology will leave the profession untouched. It clearly will not.
But because I believe the enduring value of law lies deeper than procedural mechanics.
At its best, law develops:
disciplined thinking,
strategic judgement,
intellectual resilience,
communication,
negotiation,
and the ability to navigate complexity and consequence.
Those are deeply human capabilities.
In many respects, they may become even more important as artificial intelligence becomes more capable.
The legal profession twenty years from now may look very different from the profession that existed twenty years ago. But human beings will still face conflict, uncertainty, risk, negotiation, family breakdown, commercial disputes and difficult decisions.
They will still need judgement.
And I suspect thoughtful lawyers will continue to matter for a very long time.
Discussing your situation
At Eddison Cogan Lawyers, we recognise that technology is changing the way clients access information and engage with legal issues. We also believe that thoughtful legal judgement, strategic advice and understanding human circumstances remain central to effective legal practice. We welcome conversations with clients, students and prospective interns interested in the future direction of the profession.
About the author
Managing Partner, Eddison Cogan Lawyers
Christopher Eddison-Cogan is a solicitor qualified in England & Wales and Australia. His work spans family law, commercial matters and dispute resolution, with a particular interest in strategic problem-solving, negotiation and the evolving relationship between technology, professional judgement and legal practice. Alongside his legal work, he is involved in the design and development of legal software and has a longstanding interest in how emerging technologies are reshaping professional services, decision-making and client experience.
The following note is included for clarity and completeness.
This article provides general commentary and opinion relating to the legal profession and technology as at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Legal and technological developments may change over time. Reading this article does not create a solicitor-client relationship with Eddison Cogan Lawyers.
