TomorrowLawyer: Scholar, Tribune, & Operator

What, precisely, is the lawyer’s function in the age of Artificial Intelligence?

This question, once the domain of science fiction, is now a pressing, practical concern for small firms and solo practitioners. As large language models (LLMs) demonstrate increasing proficiency in drafting motions, summarizing discovery, and researching complex legal questions, it is easy to view the human lawyer as a soon-to-be-obsolete intermediary.

This view, however, fundamentally misapprehends the lawyer’s core function. It confuses the practice of law with the administration of legal information.

A recent article on the APA Online blog, “Seeking Existential Solidarity in the Age of AI,” though not about law, lands on the precise value a human lawyer provides. The author discusses the human need for “existential solidarity”—the simple, profound need to be “seen and heard” by another human being who can share, or at least understand, one’s predicament.

An AI cannot, in any meaningful sense, provide this. It is a tool for information processing, not a partner in a human crisis.

This distinction is captured perfectly in the bench scene from the film Good Will Hunting. The Robin Williams’ character confronts Will Hunting, pointing out that while Will could, from a book, know everything about the Sistine Chapel, he has never experienced it. He doesn’t know its “smell.”

That is the chasm AI cannot cross.

An LLM can scan and synthesize every appellate case on summary judgment in your jurisdiction. But it cannot sit with a client, absorb the panic and chaos of their story, and exercise the judgment required to translate that human story into a compelling legal narrative. It cannot advise a parent-under-investigation, facing the myriad threats of a CPS case, on the tactical decision of when to cooperate and when to assert their rights.

The AI, in short, has never smelled the inside of a courtroom. It doesn’t understand the fear of a client facing financial ruin, the stress of a deposition, or the unique pressure of arguing before a skeptical judge.

For the small firm lawyer, AI will not be a replacement; it will be a powerful paralegal. It will handle the “what”—what does the statute say? What is the relevant case law?

This frees the human lawyer to focus entirely on the “why” and the “how.” Why is this the right strategic move for this specific client? How do we present this case in a way that provides that “existential solidarity” and achieves the best human outcome?

The new demands on lawyers will not be technical, but human. AI will eliminate the part of our job that involves being a better information-retrieval machine. It will force us, instead, to be better counselors, better strategists, and better advocates. It will demand we focus not on the data of the law, but on the wisdom of its application.