Your opinion suggests that you are biased and you have a lose if there is automation. The reality is that the tech exists and it would be extremely foolish to believe that the tech in the next few years does not have the potential to displace a majority of the work force in the biggest firms. Corporate lawyers can keep using fancy words like "structuring" , "strategic" to describe the work that they do but the reality is that apart from customizing transaction docs which involves a decent amount of labour, very little amount of legal value addition is done at the biggest firms in the country because of the vast transaction precedents that exist in these large firms. Most senior management of firms like CFOs who interact with these M&A lawyers largely believe that most of the work can be automated and there is very little value addition done by pure deal lawyers. M&A lawyers put up this pretence of great value addition but the reality is that except for certain select transactions, most of the work is repetitive and not cerebral. Banking and cap mark lawyers do not even put this pretence that their work adds a lot of value unlike general corp lawyers and most of them admit that they are in only due to the money. Litigation and court practice is what is here to say. There will be an existential crisis for lawyers working in corporate firms in the next few years. I bet that large corporates will be first ones to move in the direction of automation and they will be followed by bulge bracket PE firms. The world is indeed changing at a rapid pace and the reality is that the deal lawyers are not as important as they think they are. They need to smell the coffee. However, lending transactions and banking will be first to be automated, But I agree that not much has been done in this regard globally but it would be foolish to deny the fact that the tech exists and the tech will only get better with time.

I work extensively on integrating firm templates with our ridiculously overpriced automation solutions, so my skepticism comes from a place of hands-on experience. Existing automation software is little more than a clunky UI slapped on a firm approved template. Top management shells out big bucks for this thinking they can save on man hours, but they forget that middle management exists solely to fuck things up for everyone. Partners never stick to a standard template and automation only goes so far, each clause is still individually reviewed and reaffirmed. The overall number of hours we've seen being saved by attorneys by using this newfangled technology is very minute in the grand scheme of things.

We are already working on changing KM tactics to align with the AI processes on experimental basis. The tech is already in advanced stages and post fusion of the tech and data we can expect to see massive billing hours coming down. Especially from a perspective of first drafts, automated compliance checks, preparation of filings and so on. Short of legal opinion, arguments and anything that requires creative input, can assure you that tech will be here in five years max.

To be clear, let me just say that AI and automation are two different things. Automation tech is here and pending implementation, any big law firm that manages to implement it at this stage will save countless useless man hours and dedicate thT money and resources to getting more work, thereby massively increasing revenue.

Wonder which firm will get their first.

As a former cap marks lawyer, I can agree completely. Cap marks as a practice area involves almost no actual reading, understanding or implication of the law whatsoever and can be carried out by a bunch of trained monkeys with typewriters. Like the comment above says, it's double the work for half the money, your team will always be understaffed because your partner can't afford more attorneys and you have to do an elaborate song and dance for every landing every mandate. To top things off, working with PSUs and government mandates is a separate circle of hell in itself. Some law firms take up government cap marks work for a total amount that's less than an M&A attorney's hourly rate and then never hand out promotions to the team despite the overall hours being far more than someone in the gencorp practice.

to sum, never ever take up cap marks, you will stagnate.

Absolutely. B&F is worse than cap marks. Both B&F and cap marks should be avoided at all costs. Litigation and general corp should be preferred. B&F is heavily templated. It is all about customizing documents. Also, cap marks involves very little law. It is mostly a back end job done for BRLMs and you will be working fifty per cent harder than any other team in the firm for less money. This is because cap marks is not profitable. The billing is not hourly and mandates are fixed mandates. Hope this helps. Litigation and general corp involves application of several of the concepts you have learnt in law school.

The correct answer is - no practice area. At least not for the next two decades or so. "AI" in law is mostly artificial with next to no intelligence. The technology is simply not there, commercially available and scalable. People get so caught up in buzzwords that they forget most of Indian law firm practice, especially on PE/VC deals runs on jugaad. Your software can point out a number of things in a contract fed to it, but even hardcore template driven deals boil down to your attorney's negotiation and wiggling around legal grey areas. No practice area is at any risk of disruption from AI in the near future, because there is too much of a human element to it currently. Let's revisit this 20 years from now.

Yes probably, except for the risk factors which is based on assessment of due diligence information. Of course a lot of diligence can be (and is being) automated as well. But assessment of risks would have a human element. Unless there are straight forward cases of non-compliances where a computer could presumably look up the law and calculate penalties.

I think all practice areas, especially transactional ones will be hit. First drafts can be easily generated. This will cut down lawyer time and attendant billing. Thereby reducing demand for lawyers.

Lawyers won't be obsolete, but not as many will be required.

B&F because most of the documentation is very form driven with the lenders having greater bargaining power thereby being able to dictate terms.

This could apply to cookie-cutter VC and smaller PE practices as well. Basically wherever one party calls the shots and negotiations are perfunctory.