As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in legal practice, law students and young lawyers are facing a critical question: what skills will matter most in an AI-enabled profession?
We interviewed leaders at Greenberg Traurig, Cozen O’Connor, Cooley, Faegre Drinker, Crowell & Moring, and Axinn to understand what skills will distinguish successful attorneys in the AI era, what new opportunities AI is creating, and how law schools should prepare students for the future of the profession.
A consistent message emerged. Traditional legal skills are not becoming obsolete. Instead, AI is increasing the importance of judgment, critical thinking, professional responsibility, attention to detail, and client service. But AI is also changing the path by which young lawyers develop those skills. If routine junior-lawyer tasks are automated or accelerated, law firms and law schools may need to become more deliberate about how new lawyers learn the craft.
The leaders interviewed described both sides of that shift. Used well, AI can help young lawyers understand assignments more deeply, absorb information faster, and move earlier into strategic, client-facing work. Used poorly, it can encourage passivity, weaken core analytical habits, and create the illusion of competence before professional judgment has been fully developed.
These leaders also believe AI education should begin before students enter legal practice. Law schools must continue teaching foundational skills such as legal research, writing, analysis, and advocacy. But students should also graduate with a baseline understanding of AI technologies, their capabilities and limitations, the ethical and professional responsibilities associated with their use, and how to critically assess AI-assisted work product. In their view, AI literacy should complement, not replace, the foundational training that remains central to legal education.
Taken together, these interviews point to several practical lessons for law students, new lawyers, and legal educators. The following themes emerged most consistently across the firms interviewed:
Key Takeaways
AI may accelerate the divide between young lawyers who take ownership of their development and those who become passive users of technology.
AI may disrupt the traditional apprenticeship model by automating or accelerating some routine junior-lawyer tasks, requiring more structured training, feedback, and simulation-based learning.
Core legal skills remain essential, but new lawyers must learn how to apply them in AI-assisted workflows.
Beyond traditional legal skills, law firm leaders believe adaptability, curiosity, AI literacy, continuous learning, and relationship-building will become increasingly important.
Young lawyers who use AI tools to deepen their understanding of legal doctrine, client work, and strategic judgment may develop faster than prior generations of associates.
Young lawyers who use AI as a substitute for thinking, rather than as a tool to assist thinking, risk falling behind.
Leaders at top firms believe AI education should begin in law school, so students enter practice with both foundational legal skills and practical AI literacy.
Core, Traditional Legal Skills Remain Essential
Despite the rapid pace of technological change, every firm leader interviewed emphasized that the foundational skills of good lawyering remain essential.
David Wang, Chief Innovation Officer at Cooley, stressed that “every single traditional skill that has mattered will continue to matter; they just manifest in different ways now.” According to Wang, professional responsibility, attention to detail, and a lawyer’s duty to clients remain just as important in an AI-enabled profession as they were before. The difference is that these skills are now being applied to new technologies and workflows.
For example, while attention to detail once may have meant carefully checking documents for typographical errors, today it may mean diligently verifying AI-generated citations, authorities, and analysis.
Jennifer Fowler, Chief Talent Officer at Faegre Drinker, shared a similar view. “Sound judgment and legal analysis remain fundamental,” Fowler explained. “AI can assist with certain tasks, but it does not replace the need for lawyers with good judgment, a commitment to excellence, and strong relationship skills.”
Alma Asay, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Crowell & Moring, echoed that point, explaining that critical thinking and judgment are not becoming less important because of AI, but rather “more important than ever.” According to Asay, lawyers are increasingly receiving AI-generated work product that may appear to provide an easy answer. The associates who thrive are those who use critical thinking and sound judgment to challenge, verify, and improve that work product.
Greenberg Traurig Senior Chairman Brad Kaufman and Greenberg Traurig Executive Vice President Diane Ibrahim agreed. “AI can support efficiency, but it does not replace the lawyer’s role,” they explained. “Lawyers remain accountable for producing work that is accurate, thoughtful, and aligned with client objectives. In an AI-enabled environment, that includes exercising judgment over AI-generated outputs and automated processes.”
Collectively, the interviews reveal a clear theme: while AI may transform how legal work is performed, it does not diminish the importance of the core skills that have always defined excellent lawyers. Instead, it raises the importance of judgment, critical thinking, and professional responsibility.
The Skills New Lawyers Will Need Most
Although every interviewee emphasized the continuing importance of traditional legal skills, several additional competencies emerged as especially important for new lawyers entering AI-enabled practice.
One of the most common themes was adaptability. According to Asay at Crowell & Moring, lawyers must develop “adaptability and curiosity” in ways the profession has not historically required. Asay explained that lawyers have traditionally relied heavily on precedent, but because both law firms and AI technologies are evolving rapidly, the associates who thrive will be those who adapt to change, remain curious about new tools, and continually update their knowledge.
Several interviewees also stressed the importance of intellectual curiosity and continuous learning.
Wang, of Cooley, suggested that AI may accelerate the separation between junior lawyers who take ownership of their development and those who become passive users of technology. In Wang’s view, the differentiator will not be mere access to AI tools, but whether young lawyers use those tools to become “super learners” who understand assignments more deeply, assimilate new information faster, and take greater responsibility for their work. As he put it, the “super learners will win in the future.”
Andrew Woolf, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Cozen O'Connor, emphasized AI literacy and a growth mindset as core competencies for new lawyers. New attorneys, he explained, need a baseline understanding of AI technologies, including what large language models do well, where their limitations exist, and how those limitations affect legal work. Woolf believes that “the AI-enabled lawyer is the lawyer of the future.”
Additionally, AI competence is not only an individual skill. Kaufman and Ibrahim at Greenberg Traurig emphasized that as AI becomes part of legal workflows, lawyers will increasingly need to supervise how colleagues use AI, verify AI-assisted work product, and ensure that tools are used consistently with confidentiality, privilege, client expectations, and professional obligations.
Several leaders also predicted that relationship-building skills will become even more valuable as AI automates routine work. Woolf noted that emotional intelligence will become increasingly important as AI allows lawyers to spend more time on strategic, client-facing work. Asay at Crowell & Moring similarly predicted a “return to relationship building,” explaining that as technology becomes normalized, “the human element will have a resurgence.”
The interviews also suggest that AI literacy will increasingly matter in client relationships. According to Rachael Philbin, Chief Innovation Officer at Axinn, “clients are asking important questions about how AI is being used, what safeguards are in place, and how firms ensure confidentiality, quality, and reliability.” As AI changes how legal work is delivered, lawyers will need to explain not only their legal advice but also the processes, safeguards, and value proposition behind AI-assisted legal services.
New Opportunities AI Is Creating for Legal Professionals
Many interviewees rejected the view that AI will reduce opportunities for lawyers. Instead, they described a shift in the type of work lawyers perform, the speed at which young lawyers may develop, and the emergence of new career paths within the legal profession.
Wang, of Cooley, emphasized that while AI can replace certain tasks, it cannot replace the lawyer's fundamental role. “Our job is to solve complex legal problems for clients,” he explained. “That job is not going away; the demand for it is growing.”
In Wang’s view, AI may automate some routine assignments historically performed by junior lawyers, but it can also allow young attorneys to level up more quickly, take on greater responsibility, and engage in higher-level strategic thinking earlier in their careers.
Several interviewees noted that AI may allow lawyers to spend more time on client-facing and advisory work. Scott Angelo, Chief Technology and Innovation Officer at Faegre Drinker, explained that “AI has the potential to improve efficiency and consistency in certain types of work, which can allow lawyers to spend more time on higher-value activities such as advising clients and addressing complex issues.”
The interviews also highlighted the emergence of new professional roles at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation. Wang pointed to growing demand for lawyer-technologist positions, noting that firms are increasingly hiring innovation counsel and legal innovation professionals with both legal and technical expertise.
Philbin at Axinn echoed that point. “AI is also creating opportunities for new professional roles within the legal industry,” she explained. “We are already seeing professionals from technical disciplines entering the legal sector and bringing new perspectives and capabilities. Going forward, there will likely be increased demand for individuals who combine deep technology expertise with a broad understanding of legal practice.”
The broader point is that AI is not merely changing how existing legal tasks are performed. It is also changing what lawyers can spend their time doing, how quickly junior lawyers can develop, and what kinds of hybrid legal-technology roles firms may need in the years ahead.
AI May Also Require a New Model of Lawyer Development
Several leaders emphasized that AI may disrupt the traditional apprenticeship model. As certain routine junior-lawyer tasks are automated or accelerated, firms and law schools will need to be more intentional about how young lawyers develop judgment, analytical discipline, and practical legal skills.
Kaufman and Ibrahim, of Greenberg Traurig, explained that many lawyers may no longer receive the same apprenticeship opportunities that earlier generations of associates received. “Development can no longer rely primarily on passive, on-the-job exposure or a traditional apprenticeship model alone. It will require more structured training, guided feedback, hands-on learning, and simulation-based experiences that allow lawyers to actively practice judgment.”
That shift has implications for both law firms and law schools. As AI increasingly performs or accelerates certain tasks historically assigned to junior lawyers, legal educators and employers will need to create more structured, experiential opportunities for students and young attorneys to practice the skills AI cannot replace. Those opportunities should include not only training on when and how to use AI, but also repeated practice in verifying authorities, evaluating AI-generated analysis, identifying gaps or errors, and refining AI-assisted work product into lawyer-quality work.
That need for more deliberate professional formation also informs what law schools should teach before students enter practice.
Recommendations for Law Schools, Law Students, and New Lawyers
Virtually every leader interviewed agreed that AI education should begin before students enter practice.
Some law schools have already begun moving in that direction. In 2025, Case Western Reserve University School of Law became the first law school to require every first-year law student to complete a course and certification in AI and law. Mississippi College School of Law, Suffolk University Law School, and UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law have also adopted required AI coursework for first-year students.
But mandatory AI training programs remain rare.
Law firm leaders emphasized that AI literacy should complement the foundational skills students already need to develop.
Woolf, of Cozen O’Connor, said he would “love to see the training begin in law school,” while emphasizing that schools must continue teaching foundational skills such as legal research, writing, and strategy. At the same time, he believes students should learn the basics of large language models, prompting techniques, how to evaluate AI-generated outputs, and the ethical risks associated with these technologies.
Kaufman and Ibrahim, of Greenberg Traurig, similarly emphasized that “law students should focus on developing the AI skills and behaviors that enhance or support the general competencies they will be expected to achieve as practicing attorneys.”
Fowler, of Faegre Drinker, made a similar point, noting that “law students will benefit from being adaptable, intellectually curious, and willing to learn, as technology and its applications continue to evolve. Familiarity with generative AI tools, along with the ability to think critically about their use, will help position new lawyers for success.”
Philbin, of Axinn, described AI not only as a subject students should learn, but also as a tool that can improve legal training itself. “AI-enabled training experiences can provide immediate feedback, adapt to individual learning needs, and help lawyers develop skills more efficiently,” she explained.
At the same time, interviewees consistently warned that AI should not be used as a substitute for thinking. Wang, of Cooley, described one of the greatest risks facing young lawyers as using AI for “cognitive replacement instead of cognitive assistance.” Successful lawyers, in his view, will use AI to deepen their understanding of legal concepts, accelerate their learning, and improve their work product, rather than delegating their judgment to technology.
Asay, of Crowell & Moring, offered a similar warning. Lawyers who treat AI as a replacement for their own work risk creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that AI will replace them. By contrast, lawyers who take ownership of their work product and use AI to better understand their assignments will create greater value and develop more quickly.
Across the interviews, a common recommendation emerged: lawyers should view AI as a tool for acceleration, not substitution. Those who leverage AI to learn faster, think more strategically, and engage more deeply with legal concepts will gain significant advantages. Those who become overly dependent on AI risk weakening the very skills that make lawyers valuable.
Conclusion
The message from law firm leadership is clear: AI is changing how lawyers work, but it is not displacing the core qualities that make lawyers effective.
Judgment, critical thinking, legal analysis, communication, attention to detail, and client service remain the foundation of legal practice. In an AI-enabled profession, however, those skills must be paired with AI literacy, adaptability, curiosity, continuous learning, and the ability to work effectively with emerging technologies.
For new lawyers, the distinction matters. Those who use AI to accelerate their development, deepen their understanding of legal concepts, and improve the quality of their work will be better positioned to create value for clients. Those who rely on AI as a substitute for professional judgment risk weakening the very skills that make lawyers valuable.
For law schools, the implication is direct. AI literacy can no longer be treated as optional or peripheral. Students still need rigorous training in research, writing, analysis, advocacy, judgment, and professional responsibility. But they also need to understand how AI tools work, where those tools fail, and how lawyers remain accountable for the work those tools help produce.
The future of legal practice will not belong to lawyers who choose between traditional legal skills and AI literacy. It will belong to lawyers who understand how to combine both.
