by Charu Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Mari Grace, and Kendall Howell
From left to right: Charu Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Mari Grace, and Kendall Howell. Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
The Gutenberg Bible was a significant achievement of mass production; notably, however, the copies were not identical. Although most of the text was printed mechanically, purchasers would still commission artisans to customize each volume with elaborate illustrations, decorative lettering, and custom bindings.
In the Middle Ages, before Gutenberg, producing books was a slow process, as scribes would often spend months writing the text by hand. While the printing press reduced the time it took to produce books substantially, it did not fully standardize them. Early printed books left blank spaces for large initial letters and headings, which allowed illustrators and specialized scribes to finish each copy to the buyer’s taste. Gutenberg was able to produce books much more quickly and at a greatly reduced cost, but each book was still impressive, customized, and unique.
High-end legal services may be following a similar pattern with the integration of AI into legal services, which remain expensive because they require significant time from highly trained professionals. Similar to the printing press, legal AI creates the opportunity for lawyers to automate certain aspects of their work (e.g., conducting research, generating first drafts of contracts, initial review of diligence or litigation documents), freeing them up to allocate their judgment and experience to more clients (and the hardest questions for those clients), thereby creating additional supply to meet growing demand.
One of the underappreciated innovations of the printing press was that it struck a new balance between standardization and customization. Legal AI can do the same. By absorbing the parts of legal work that can be automated, legal AI enables lawyers to spend more of their time where they add the most value and deliver high-end legal services to more clients, more quickly, without compromising the quality of the most crucial components of legal advice. The lesson from the printing press is that good automation doesn’t eliminate the value of expertise; it directs that expertise to where it is most valuable.
Charu Chandrasekhar and Avi Gesser are Partners, and Mari Grace and Kendall Howell are Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. This post was originally published on the Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Data Blog.
The views, opinions and positions expressed within all posts are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York University School of Law. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this site and will not be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author(s) and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with the author(s).
by Charu Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Mari Grace, and Kendall Howell
From left to right: Charu Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Mari Grace, and Kendall Howell. Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
The Gutenberg Bible was a significant achievement of mass production; notably, however, the copies were not identical. Although most of the text was printed mechanically, purchasers would still commission artisans to customize each volume with elaborate illustrations, decorative lettering, and custom bindings.
In the Middle Ages, before Gutenberg, producing books was a slow process, as scribes would often spend months writing the text by hand. While the printing press reduced the time it took to produce books substantially, it did not fully standardize them. Early printed books left blank spaces for large initial letters and headings, which allowed illustrators and specialized scribes to finish each copy to the buyer’s taste. Gutenberg was able to produce books much more quickly and at a greatly reduced cost, but each book was still impressive, customized, and unique.
High-end legal services may be following a similar pattern with the integration of AI into legal services, which remain expensive because they require significant time from highly trained professionals. Similar to the printing press, legal AI creates the opportunity for lawyers to automate certain aspects of their work (e.g., conducting research, generating first drafts of contracts, initial review of diligence or litigation documents), freeing them up to allocate their judgment and experience to more clients (and the hardest questions for those clients), thereby creating additional supply to meet growing demand.
One of the underappreciated innovations of the printing press was that it struck a new balance between standardization and customization. Legal AI can do the same. By absorbing the parts of legal work that can be automated, legal AI enables lawyers to spend more of their time where they add the most value and deliver high-end legal services to more clients, more quickly, without compromising the quality of the most crucial components of legal advice. The lesson from the printing press is that good automation doesn’t eliminate the value of expertise; it directs that expertise to where it is most valuable.
Charu Chandrasekhar and Avi Gesser are Partners, and Mari Grace and Kendall Howell are Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. This post was originally published on the Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Data Blog.
The views, opinions and positions expressed within all posts are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York University School of Law. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this site and will not be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author(s) and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with the author(s).
