For advocates (barristers) I’d agree with you. For solicitors, not so much. And the latter form the vast majority of legal practice with mesmerically boring stuff like corporate tax advice, real estate conveyancing, contracts and dispute settlement.
Really…
Tell me more about this profession of which I have never heard. /s
More seriously - which of those do you think don’t involve dealing with people?
But, but:
You misunderstood what I meant. The issue is about the proportion of a job that is necessary to deal with people in order to do that job. Think of it this way: solicitors deal with people, but then so do shop keepers. Amazon doesn’t have shop keepers, but people can still buy things from it.
I don’t think I did. I disagree about the proportion you seem to think the job of a solicitor involves.
Knowing the law and applying it are tiny parts of any lawyer’s job.
Important, yes but so is handholding the worried client through their house purchase.
So is persuading the person on the other side of the dispute that their case is not as strong as they think it is.
Getting your own client to realise that their case is not as strong as they think it is!
Persuading them to settle a claim even though they hate their opponent’s guts because settling is the sensible thing to do.
Keeping them from a nervous breakdown from the stress and anxiety of litigation.
Working out from your client what the heck it is they actually want in order that the contract you draft for them actually does what they want instead of what they initially told you which turns out to be entirely the opposite of how they will actually run their business.
I can’t speak for corporate tax advice - they may all actually be robots. 
None of this of course means that we won’t all be replaced by robots. It just means the job the ‘robots’ do will be a different one.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
