|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For generations, the legal profession followed a tried-and-true model for training lawyers. Law schools taught students to think like attorneys, while firms showed them how to practice. The division of labor was clear, the pipeline steady, and judgment – the quality that sets great lawyers apart – naturally developed along the way.
But that system is breaking down, and the profession still hasn’t figured out what should take its place.
A model that worked
The apprenticeship at the heart of legal training was closely associated with an approach first adopted by Cravath, Swaine & Moore in the early twentieth century. Elite firms recruited heavily from elite law schools, developed junior associates through a deliberate progression, and gradually gave them greater responsibility under partner supervision.
The model proved mutually beneficial. Law schools focused on intellectual rigor, leaving firms to handle practical formation. Firms leveraged law school selectivity as a sorting mechanism and benefited from the billable hours of large associate classes. Clients enjoyed a one-stop shop of basic and sophisticated legal services from a single provider. If they were effectively subsidizing junior development, there was little reason to object, as credible alternatives were few.
But the model also did something critical but less visible: it cultivated judgment. Not directly, but by creating the conditions for it to emerge. Repetition built pattern recognition. And progressive complexity forced lawyers to make increasingly consequential decisions, with partners watching, correcting, and modeling good judgment.
Why is it breaking down
That pipeline is under pressure from multiple directions. Clients are increasingly sophisticated buyers of legal services and are unwilling to pay for junior training. As legal departments have grown in size and capability, they have taken more work in-house, deploying technology to manage routine tasks. The information monopoly that once made the one-stop-shop model compelling has eroded. Clients now have alternatives, and they are using them.
Firms, meanwhile, face higher attrition and mounting pressure on partners to generate business rather than mentor talent. And AI is absorbing the routine work, including first-pass reviews, basic drafting, and due diligence, through which junior lawyers build their foundational judgment.
This is the hidden crisis inside the visible one. The removal of routine work is undermining the conditions under which judgment was traditionally cultivated.
Law schools are left holding the bag. Yet most have not risen to the challenge.
The skills gap
Judgment is not simply one skill among many. It is a foundational capability that the profession risks losing precisely as its criticality is rising. Ironically, it is the core skill human experts will be valued for in the AI era; the one thing that cannot be automated.
And yet the judgment crisis is only part of the challenge. As AI absorbs traditional expertise, the bar for what lawyers must offer rises with it. Clients face an environment in which commercial, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks are merging. Problems no longer arrive in neat legal silos. Lawyers must synthesize across disciplines, integrating legal, financial, and strategic considerations into coherent and clearly communicated advice.
Genuine technological fluency is also increasingly essential. Lawyers don’t need to be engineers, but they must understand how to work with AI; how AI-enabled workflows function, how to supervise them, and how to identify outputs that appear persuasive but may be wrong. These are not soft skills. They are key pillars of professional differentiation. Almost nobody is systematically teaching them.
What law schools must do
Law schools can no longer treat practical formation as someone else’s problem. That means honestly acknowledging the judgment gap and investing seriously in the simulations, clinics, and live client work that can recreate some of the conditions apprenticeship once provided. It means building business literacy into the curriculum as a core competency. And it means evolving teaching methods, including business-school-style cases, cross-disciplinary problem sets, and environments that force students to make decisions rather than just analyze appellate reasoning.
As Michele DeStefano has argued, the goal should be to train people to think like lawyers, behave like business professionals, and be innovators. The schools that succeed will be those that assume greater responsibility for the full formation of lawyers.
The role clients must play
Clients were instrumental in dismantling the old model. Their unwillingness to subsidize junior training is understandable but short-sighted. The talent they are refusing to fund today is the talent they will desperately need tomorrow.
There are practical ways to act on that interest. Embedding junior lawyers in-house as part of deliberate development programs. Co-funding training through industry bodies. Partnering with law schools on curriculum design and clinics. Firms and law schools cannot do this alone. Clients who benefit most from excellent legal judgment have both the means and the motivation to help.
What leaders must do now
The challenge is not only about the next generation but also about the people currently working.
As the traditional conditions for cultivating judgment erode, firms must construct new ones. That might mean giving lawyers meaningful responsibility earlier, rather than reserving complexity for more senior colleagues. Here, AI offers something unexpected: a partial answer to the problem it has helped bring about. Junior lawyers equipped with the right tools can research, draft, and analyze at a level that once required significant experience. The task for leaders is to harness that capability to accelerate development.
It also means investing in new skills such as business literacy, cross-functional collaboration, and strategic thinking. None of this is cheap. But the cost of underinvestment will eventually show up, and by then it will be difficult to close.
The window is open
The lawyer of 2030 will still need to know the law. But that is increasingly table stakes. Judgment is the prize that cannot be downloaded or automated. It must be deliberately built. The profession is losing the mechanism through which it traditionally did so, at a moment when it matters more than ever.
The legal ecosystem must urgently redesign for judgment and new skills. The longer the profession waits, the harder that becomes.
