In our first Live Platforum9 debate, legal technology experts Malin Mannikko (Legal Tech Associate at DLA Piper Sweden) and Christian Mellado Hjortshoj (Co-Founder of Juristic) argued the case on a provocative question: Is AI making lawyers lazy or more efficient?
The Debate Format
This was our first foray into the delights of the legal debate format, and we were entertained by both participant’s excellent grasp of the topic discussed and their fun way of challenging the position of each other.
Designed as a formal debate in the classic legal style, with Mannikko arguing that AI is indeed making lawyers lazy, while Hjortshoj defended the technology as a tool for efficiency. As they explained at the outset, these positions were adopted for the sake of argument rather than necessarily reflecting their personal views or those of their employers.
“We wanted some deeper conclusions and deeper discussions,” Hjortshoj explained. “Without it becoming just rambly echo chambers.”
The Case for “Lazy”: AI as a Crutch
Mannikko opened with a strong argument that AI diminishes critical thinking, particularly in younger lawyers. “AI use has been linked to diminished critical thinking capabilities fundamentally in younger people,” she asserted. This occurs because AI encourages “cognitive offloading” – the tendency to dump problems into an AI system rather than working through them methodically.
“I don’t have to think about what method I want to use. I don’t have to do prioritisation of the material I’m uploading. I’m just doing a brain dump and getting something out of it,” Mannikko explained. This pattern, she argued, creates dangerous habits.
She further developed three key arguments throughout the debate:
- The Patience Problem: When 80% of legal work becomes automated and fast, lawyers may lose the patience necessary for the deep, careful thinking required for the remaining 20%. “I don’t have the patience for that because I’m so used to everything going faster.”
- The Psychological Hurdle: The speed of AI-generated work creates a psychological barrier to proper validation. “There is a psychological hurdle to justify spending ten times the time on just validation… I think we will not validate enough in the legal industry.”
- Professional Deskilling: Over-reliance on AI as a crutch leads to “professional deskilling” – the atrophy of core legal skills. “When we use it as a crutch when we can do our work without assistance… we’re just replacing tasks that we used to do as lawyers with AI, and now we don’t know how to do that anymore.”
The Case for “Efficient”: AI as an Evolutionary Tool
Hjortshoj countered that AI represents a natural evolution in legal technology. “People were saying that about calculators. People were saying that about the internet,” he noted, referencing historical fears about new technologies.
He structured his defense around several key points:
- The Upskilling Opportunity: AI automation can free junior lawyers from routine tasks, allowing them to take on more challenging work earlier in their careers. “The 80% extra time where we may see the cognitive offloading… can be used for better things. So instead of sorting documents, I will actually get assignments that normally a junior lawyer wouldn’t get.”
- The Insurance Factor: The nature of legal work itself provides guardrails against laziness. “Law is essentially just advanced insurance,” Hjortshoj argued. “The lawyer does not want to be wrong since he’s the insurance… There’s already a natural incentive in the existing system.”
- The Efficiency Multiplier: AI helps lawyers focus on high-value work rather than routine tasks, just as other professionals use technology. “Surgeons use robot-assisted surgery… architects using CAD software… They still have to think and make sure their calculations are correct.”
The Generational Divide
Both debaters acknowledged a significant generational gap in AI adoption and skill development. Mannikko noted: “Young people need a lot of help with what we call the craft of legal, but they are really good at using AI systems to help them. For the older generation, they’re really good at the legal craft, but really crappy at using AI systems.”
This creates a meeting point where different generations of lawyers can learn from each other – a potential silver lining in the AI revolution.
The Hierarchy Solution
A key point of contention emerged around how law firms would adapt to AI. Hjortshoj argued that existing hierarchy would naturally redistribute work: “The senior lawyers will say, ‘Hey, I inherently don’t want to do this work. Could you, now that you don’t have to do all the boring work, do my boring work?'”
Mannikko was less convinced, expressing concern about firms’ ability to implement proper guardrails: “Those guardrails are so on the brink of ruin… There has to be guardrails and incentives before we’re like, ‘Well, if we don’t do X, Y, Z, we’re going to get sued by our clients.'”
Finding Common Ground
Despite their opposing positions, both debaters agreed on several fundamental points:
- Law firms need robust verification systems for AI-generated work
- Proper training and upskilling are essential
- The profession must maintain its focus on accuracy
- AI can potentially free lawyers to do higher-value work
As the debate concluded, Mannikko summarised: “If you give in to human nature too much and just submit to the comfort of AI systems as a problem solver and a critical thinker for you, then you are in the problem. But our industry has inherently always had robust guardrails, a lot of quality marks, and a lot of checkers.”
Hjortshoj offered a final rebuttal: “Humans are inherently lazy… but it’s not AI that’s doing it. Lawyers and AI is not making lawyers lazy – it may be highlighting our laziness, but it will make us more efficient.”
As the legal profession navigates this technological revolution, perhaps the most valuable approach lies somewhere between these positions: embracing AI’s efficiency while consciously guarding against its potential to erode critical thinking and core legal skills.
