According to an article, Deep Research identified 20 jobs OpenAI o3 will replace. One of those is “Paralegal”. To which I say: “Hah!”
The article in ZDNet (ChatGPT’s Deep Research just identified 20 jobs it will replace. Is yours on the list?, written by Sabrina Ortiz and available here), Min Choi, an X user whose account is dedicated to sharing informational AI content, asked Deep Research to “List 20 jobs that OpenAI o3 reasoning model will replace human with into a table format ordered by probability. Columns are Rank, Job, Why Better Than Human, Probability.” Choi then shared the results of the chat via an X post, which has since garnered 1.1 million views.
After deep diving into 24 sources in seven minutes, the X post shows that Deep Research produced a table that included job titles, explanations as to why an AI is better than a human at the role, and the probability that the job will be replaced. Choi shared a link to the entirety of its interaction, which you find here to see the table in detail.
The top four jobs on the list are: 1) Tax Preparer (with a ~98% probability of being replaced by AI), 2) Data Entry Clerk (~95%), 3) Telemarketer (~94%, imagine how much more we’ll be bombarded by telemarketers than we already are!), and 4) Bookkeeper (~94%).
What job is #5? Paralegal at ~90% probability of being replaced by AI. Here’s what it says in the “Why Better Than Human” column:
“Scans and summarizes legal documents in seconds. GPT-style AI can research case law and draft routine filings much faster than humans, handling many paralegal tasks with ease.” (emphasis added)
“GPT-style AI can research case law”? Hah! Are you kidding me?
Of course it can. It has done such a great job in cases like this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one. Oh wait, these are all cases with fake case citations! And these aren’t even all the ones that I’ve covered, much less the many more that are out there.
Think because some of these are old that it’s no longer happening? It still is. Here’s a case Phil Weldon sent me from last week (thanks Phil!) where eight out of nine cases cited didn’t exist and the Court issued a show cause order as to why plaintiff’s attorneys shouldn’t be sanctioned for this. There’s no end in sight.
There are so many things that paralegals do that go beyond summarizing legal documents (which isn’t always accurate or comprehensive via AI either) and researching case law. Paralegals do things like:
- Identify nuanced legal issues within documents that AI might miss.
- Provide support for tech-averse attorneys by learning new technologies and how they can be leveraged to existing workflows.
- Serve as a liaison between teams, coordinating between attorneys, clients, experts, and court personnel.
- Provide live courtroom support by monitoring exhibits, taking notes, and helping the attorney adjust strategies as cases unfold.
- Prepare attorneys for court by organizing exhibits, creating trial binders, and anticipating attorney needs in real time.
And much more (paralegals out there, feel free to add to the list in the comments).
Will AI transform how paralegals do their jobs? Certainly, and paralegals had better embrace that, just like the rest of us must (smart paralegals already are). But when AI says there’s a 90% chance that AI will replace what paralegals do, I say: “Hah!” Silly AI! You have so much more to learn! 🤪
Related Posts
So, what do you think? Will AI replace paralegals? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Image created using GPT-4o’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot wearing a ‘Dunce’ cap and sitting in a corner”. See, AI can’t even spell “Dunce”! 🤣
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.