Much Ado About Nothing

Are robots really coming for us? Often, amongst fellow lawyers and even our clients, we’re asked: how can you practice family law? I could never do it. What a strange profession! We receive quizzical looks as if we were a rare breed of lawyer.

The truth of the matter is that we are a special breed, and the very thing that has marked us as different and strange will protect us. You see, our unique profession requires a human touch – literally. A hand on a shoulder, an empathetic gaze, a smile and often a stern look for our clients and involved parties as they navigate difficult legal and emotional matters. Human suffering is at the core of our family law practice and no artificial intelligence will ever alleviate that and replace us as advocates who represent and counsel our clients.

As humans, we communicate through our body language. Our profession recognizes this. For example, credibility is assessed when a witness provides viva voce evidence and is cross-examined during a trial. Moreover, fundamental to the principle of justice is being heard and understood. One may even accept a negative outcome if these important needs are met. Can this be accomplished by digital platforms or tools? I doubt it. Looking a human in the eye as they relay their story to you is important and has been for centuries – why would that change? Or more importantly, why would we want or permit that to change?

We are not engaged in pure transactional work – however that is defined. We are humans with important skills meeting other humans in angst and suffering. Our work is not easy, and delegating to an artificial intelligence is not the answer. How could it be?

Before you think that I am living under a rock, I have some knowledge of communications created by artificial intelligence. We know that using an online search engine will trigger an AI response on our phones and computers. I am not impressed, and I would leave a bad review on Goodreads if that were possible. I admit that I suffer from confirmation bias on this front. Often, I find the communication dense and inefficient – the opposite of the goal of legal language, which is to distil and simplify complex facts and issues. It’s an art that continues to escape me, but an objective which is important to our profession and the bread and butter of our work. The process of drafting written communications in our profession leads to better analysis and comprehension, which is beneficial when having to think on your feet in a courtroom.

In short, dependence on artificial intelligence will undermine the very skills needed as an advocate and overlook the humanist aspect of our profession. I may be overly nostalgic and sentimental, but I will continue to favour the pen and yellow legal pad. I will continue meeting my clients in person for as long as I can. I encourage you to do likewise. Perhaps that is the bravest move in our brave new world.