- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Insurance and Healthcare industries
I recently received an email from opposing counsel; pretty standard follow-up on some delayed answers to undertakings. Maybe it was more wordy than it needed to be, but I didn't think much of it. Then, down below the signature, a strange question:
"Would you like me to make it sound firmer (to emphasize urgency) or more diplomatic (to maintain a cordial tone)?"
Two years ago, I would have had no idea what was going on. But I was quick to realize (as would most professionals nowadays) that my opponent must have been asking ChatGPT, or some other AI tool, for help drafting their email, and they had inadvertently copied the extra text into their email client.
This led me down a real mental rabbit hole...
I understand the appeal of using large language models (or "LLMs," the technical name for what we've come to refer to as "Artificial Intelligence" on a daily basis) to help you analyze or summarize a large document. Same for blog posts, marketing material, catchy "click-bait" content; I get it. AI is rapidly becoming decent at those products. I can also totally see why some professionals would use LLMs to draft a demand letter or simple document for them, at least as a starting point.
But simple correspondence? Really?
The email from the other lawyer was only about 120 words long. Being such a short email, it struck me that they may have very well used just as many words to prompt the AI! I couldn't help but wonder...
Why didn't you just type the email out yourself?
This was hardly the first time I'd received an email drafted by ChatGPT... these days, that happens on a daily basis. But it WAS the first time I'd received one – at least a blatantly obvious one – from another lawyer (by the way, I used em dashes before they were uncool).
And then I was thinking more and more about the value (and purpose) of communication skills more generally, in the legal profession.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think writing emails and letters is a crucial skill for most lawyers to have. Maybe it sounds trite, but even when you send a simple email, you're communicating! And in the litigation and advocacy world, your ability to communicate – your mastery of the English language – is so often what decides whether you win or lose. Language, critical thinking, argument, persuasiveness; these things are all intrinsically linked.
When you send and receive adversarial correspondence, you're not just typing or reading the words. You're also testing and learning what works for you and what doesn't, in terms of advocacy styles. You're finding new ways to convey the information you think is important. You're laying the groundwork for your submissions to a future judge. Maybe you're experimenting with new punctuation marks. You're practicing law!
I won't pretend that I don't sometimes hate sending emails as much as the next person... of course I do. But I also think almost every email is an opportunity to become a slightly better writer, a better communicator, a better thinker. That is, a better lawyer.
Does one email make a noticeable difference? No, probably not. But over a year? A decade? Over a career?
In this specific example, I'm not even convinced that opposing counsel actually benefited. I suspect they could have written their own email just as easily, with the same time (and brain power) it took them to write their prompt.
Right now, fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you feel about it), AI's powers of reasoning and communication aren't anywhere close to those of a lawyer's. And "garbage in, garbage out" still applies; being able to intelligently prompt the LLM is half the battle.
But as AI gets better and better, don't we lawyers have to keep improving, too?
Let me put the question differently:
Do you think a client wants a litigator who can only communicate persuasively or effectively with the assistance of AI?
Until that answer changes, I'll be writing my own emails.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
