Artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies are transforming the legal profession at an unprecedented pace. From predictive analytics and contract automation to AI-driven legal research, the practice of law is nothing like your grandfather recalls.
The transformation of the profession raises fundamental questions about how law schools educate future lawyers and how state bar associations and state supreme courts regulate licensure. Given these technological shifts, it is time for the American legal system to reevaluate its approach to legal education and licensing. One potential reform is the adoption of a British-style division between barristers (litigators) and solicitors (transactional lawyers), or a similar dual-track system. By creating distinct licensure paths—one for trial lawyers and another for transactional attorneys—the legal profession can better align education, training, and licensing with the realities of modern legal practice.
The Impact of AI and Emerging Technologies on Legal Practice
AI is reshaping the legal profession in ways that make a one-size-fits-all legal education and licensure system increasingly obsolete. Several key developments illustrate this shift:
AI-Driven Legal Research and Document Review
AI-powered platforms like Westlaw Edge, Lexis+ AI, and Casetext’s CoCounsel have revolutionized legal research, reducing the time needed to analyze case law and statutes. Similarly, AI tools for document review and contract analysis are eliminating much of the routine work traditionally performed by junior associates.
Automated Contract Drafting and Transactional Work
Companies like Ironclad and DocuSign have developed AI-enhanced platforms that streamline contract drafting, negotiation, and execution, reducing the need for hands-on lawyer intervention in many routine transactions.
AI in Litigation and Trial Practice
While transactional law is becoming more automated, litigation remains heavily reliant on human advocacy. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon. AI can assist with legal strategy, jury selection, and case prediction, but it cannot replace the judgment, persuasion, and courtroom presence required of trial attorneys (and judges).
Given these advancements, the legal profession no longer requires every law graduate to possess the same set of skills or to pass the same generalist bar exam. Instead, a two-track system would allow for specialized training and licensure tailored to distinct legal career paths.
The British Model: Barristers and Solicitors
The British legal system provides a useful framework for considering a dual-track approach in the U.S. I’m no expert;but as I understand it, in the UK, legal professionals fall into two primary categories:
Barristers: Specialize in courtroom advocacy, legal arguments, and trial litigation. They undergo specific training and must be admitted to the Bar.
Solicitors: Focus on legal advising, contract work, and transactional matters. They do not typically appear in court but handle legal documentation and client counseling.
This division ensures that each legal professional is trained in the specific competencies required for their chosen path. The American system, by contrast, requires all law students to undergo a generalist education and pass a broad-based bar exam, regardless of their intended career focus. This approach is increasingly inefficient given the evolving demands of legal practice.
Benefits of a Two-Track System in the U.S.
Adopting a two-track system in American legal education and licensure would yield several benefits:
1. More Specialized and Efficient Training
Under the current system, law students are required to learn a broad spectrum of legal subjects, many of which may be irrelevant to their intended career paths. A dual-track system would allow students to focus on either litigation or transactional law earlier in their education, reducing unnecessary coursework and improving competency in their chosen field.
2. A More Practical and Skills-Based Legal Education
Many critics argue that American law schools place too much emphasis on theory and case law analysis rather than practical skills. A dual-track system would allow law schools to implement more focused curricula, with trial-oriented students receiving intensive training in advocacy, trial procedure, and evidentiary rules, while transactional-track students receive deeper instruction in contract law, negotiations, and regulatory compliance.
3. A More Rational and Effective Licensing Process
Currently, bar exams test a wide range of subjects, many of which are irrelevant to a lawyer’s specific practice area. Under a two-track system, separate licensure exams—or exam alternatives—could be developed: one focused on litigation-related knowledge (rules of evidence, trial advocacy, courtroom procedure) and another on transactional practice (contracts, corporate law, regulatory frameworks). This would create a more meaningful and fair assessment of a law student’s actual competencies.
4. Better Alignment with Market Demand
The legal industry is increasingly segmented, with many law firms hiring either trial specialists or transactional experts. A two-track system would ensure that new graduates enter the workforce with training tailored to their employers’ needs, improving job placement rates and reducing the burden of additional post-graduate training.
5. Increased Accessibility to the Profession
The cost of legal education and licensure is a significant barrier to entry for many aspiring lawyers. A dual-track system could shorten the time and expense required for certain types of legal careers, particularly for those entering transactional practice where the traditional three-year law school model may be excessive.
Legitimate Counterarguments
Some may argue that a dual-track system could limit career flexibility or create a rigid hierarchy within the legal profession. That’s possible. However, such concerns can be addressed by allowing lawyers to transition between tracks through additional training or certification programs. Moreover, specialization is already a reality in the legal field—formalizing it through education and licensure would simply provide more structured pathways for professional development.
Another potential concern is that a two-track system could lead to a devaluation of certain types of legal work. However, by aligning training with the skills actually required for each practice area, the system would enhance, rather than diminish, the professional standing of both transactional lawyers and litigators.
Conclusion
To many, it may seem too early to consider reevaluating how the legal profession educates and licenses its practitioners. But it’s undeniable: the rapid advancement of AI and legal technology necessitates change. I’m five years out of law school and can assure you that the current one-size-fits-all approach to legal education and bar admission is increasingly misaligned with the demands of both modern practice and the marketplace.
A two-track system—similar to the British model of barristers and solicitors—offers a more practical, efficient, and market-responsive alternative. By adopting specialized educational and licensure pathways for transactional lawyers and litigators, the American legal profession can better prepare future attorneys for success in an evolving technological landscape. I’m just the messenger. But now is the time for law schools, state bar associations, and state supreme courts to embrace this necessary reform.