At a recent panel at the American Association of Law Librarians (AALL) conference, a critical discourse unfolded, revealing deep concerns about the impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on critical thinking within the legal profession. The session, initially focused on addressing misconceptions about GenAI's accuracy, quickly pivoted to a broader and more pressing issue: the training and development of critical thinking skills in young lawyers.

Panelist Patrick Parsons, Director of the Law Library at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, highlighted a troubling trend among younger lawyers and law students. The allure of GenAI tools, which excel at rote tasks like summarizing and data manipulation, might be undermining the intricate process of legal research. Unlike straightforward data retrieval, comprehensive legal research involves a nuanced understanding of relevant cases, opposing arguments, and the broader legal context—capabilities that current GenAI tools lack.

The discussion underscored a fundamental shift in how young lawyers approach problem-solving. The reliance on GenAI for quick answers could be eroding the very skills that define seasoned attorneys. Saskia Mehlhorn, Director of Knowledge Services at Norton Rose Fulbright, noted that senior lawyers often outperform their junior counterparts in using AI effectively. Their advantage? A deeper understanding of what to look for and an instinct for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated information.

The conversation also touched on the broader implications for the legal field. As legal professionals increasingly turn to AI for assistance, there's a risk that the essential cognitive processes developed through traditional research and problem-solving might wane. This shift could transform the role of lawyers and the nature of legal expertise fundamentally.

In response to these challenges, the panelists proposed several solutions aimed at preserving critical thinking skills in the digital age. These include developing training programs that emphasize thorough research processes, creating mentorship opportunities to transfer skills from experienced lawyers to novices, and encouraging a culture that values thoughtful deliberation over speed.

The legal community stands at a crossroads, faced with integrating cutting-edge technologies without compromising the intellectual rigor that underpins the profession. As we navigate this complex landscape, the ultimate goal remains clear: to maintain the human insight and critical thinking that are indispensable to the practice of law. The future of law may depend on our ability to balance these priorities, ensuring that lawyers remain thoughtful interpreters of the law, rather than mere conduits for AI-generated answers.