One wants as much time spent as possible on the matter;
…the other usually the least.
One possesses a more or less full understanding of the relevant law;
…the other hardly, and won’t be taught it.
One controls “the representation” and asks the other not to speak;
…the other remains silent.
One is very likely to have a good sense of the outcome from the earlier stages;
…the other not, and usually won’t be told.
One gets to control, effectively, the cost mechanism (and cost) of the transaction;
…the other not, and yet must pay what is asked when asked.
One gets to socialize, schmooze, and strategize with/against the opposition;
…the other is not allowed to speak to them, though it is their fate.
One possesses a cursory summary of all the fact, only that necessary for identified relevant fact patterns and law;
…the other has the full story, including “color” on various parties and fact backgrounds.
One can stop working if not paid, and have no repercussions;
…the other must always endure all the repercussions.
One oftentimes does not really care about the outcome, ‘win some, lose some’;
…the other may find the outcome to be absolutely critical.
One repeats the same speeches over and over again as if rote;
…the other thinks it is something new being said to them.
One gets greater satisfaction the longer the matter goes on;
…the other almost always less over time.
Time.
Understanding.
Knowledge.
Control.
Cost efficiency.
Communication.
Predictive ability.
Identification with result.
Removal of the unnecessary.
Client satisfaction.
= All these and more are and will be effectively better served through the implementation of AI technologies in the law which will restore greater balance in the relationship, save wasted time and cost, speed results, deliver foresight insight, allow for greater access both to the law and to the fact data into the matter than ever before.
AI is transforming the whole former dynamic rapidly and over time deepening and creating anew.
You spell it out pretty clearly, Cyrus. AI is a win-win.