The answer is not the advice: why judgment is a lawyer’s lasting value in the age of AI

That line, from a recent Thomson Reuters Institute piece on how artificial intelligence is reshaping legal work, is short. But it captures something I have felt increasingly strongly over the past couple of years, both in conversations with clients and with the younger lawyers around me.

Let me start with an honest admission. AI is not a fad, and it is not a gimmick. The tools now available to clients and advisers alike are genuinely remarkable. A finance director can ask a question at midnight and receive, within seconds, a fluent summary of the law on almost any subject. Research that once took a junior lawyer a day can be done in minutes. Drafts appear at the click of a button. Lawyers who pretend otherwise, or who hope it will all blow over, do their clients and themselves a disservice. Used well, these tools make advisers faster and, in many respects, better.

But that very power forces a question every professional adviser should be asking. If information is now abundant, cheap and instantly available, what exactly are clients paying us for?

My answer is this. The value of a good lawyer was never really about having information. It was about knowing what to do with it. Information tells you what the rules say. Judgment tells you what they mean for you - this week, in this deal, with this counterparty, before this regulator, and given what you are actually trying to achieve.

Consider the kind of question that regularly crosses my desk. A multinational group wants to restructure part of its business through Gibraltar, or to wind down an entity it no longer needs. An AI tool can set out the relevant rules accurately enough. What it cannot do is tell the client which of three technically valid routes will sit most comfortably with their auditors, their bankers and their board; which issue looks minor on paper but tends to cause delay in practice; how a regulator is likely to view a particular approach; or when the commercially sensible answer is to stop optimising and simply get the deal done. Those insights come from having seen the film before - many times, and occasionally with an unhappy ending.

Olga Mack, quoted in the same article, calls this the “translation layer” between legal analysis and business action, and warns that without that translation, legal work has little effect. She is right. Clients do not want a lecture on the law. They want clear, practical guidance they can understand, act on and explain to their own colleagues. Turning complexity into clarity is the job.

Practising in Gibraltar sharpens the point. We are a small jurisdiction with a sophisticated, internationally connected economy - financial services, insurance, online gaming and private wealth among them - serving clients who often operate across several countries at once. Our legal system is rooted in English common law, but it has its own legislation, its own regulators and its own way of doing things. Much of what matters most to clients here is not written down in any database: the practical expectations of local authorities, how a cross-border transaction really unfolds, and the relationships and reputation that help things run smoothly. That context is earned, not downloaded.

This brings me to what I believe is the most important challenge facing law firms today - and it is not technology. If our lasting value lies in experience and judgment, then that experience is a firm’s most precious asset. Yet it lives largely in people’s heads. It is built over decades of deals, disputes and difficult conversations, and it can walk out of the door on retirement.

Firms must therefore find ways to pool that collective wisdom and, in effect, to bottle it. That means capturing not only precedents and templates, but the reasoning behind them: why we advised one way and not another, what went wrong last time, what the client really cared about. Above all, it means passing it on.

Here AI creates a real paradox. The routine tasks through which junior lawyers have traditionally learned their craft - the research, the first drafts, the document reviews - are exactly the tasks AI now absorbs fastest. And clients are increasingly unwilling to pay for juniors to learn on their files. If we are not careful, we risk producing a generation of lawyers who can operate the tools but have never developed the judgment to question what the tools produce.

The answer is not to resist AI. It is to take training far more seriously and deliberately than our profession has done before. Learning by osmosis is no longer enough. Senior lawyers need to bring juniors into the room, explain their thinking out loud, walk them through the trade-offs, and give them early exposure to clients and commercial decisions. Mentoring is no longer a pleasant extra; it is how a firm protects its future.

None of this diminishes AI. Used properly, it frees experienced advisers to spend more time on the parts of the job that matter most. But the client relationship endures because clients need more than answers. They need someone who understands their business, who has seen the situation before, who will tell them plainly what to do and why - and who stands behind that advice.

Information has been democratised. Judgment has not. The firms that thrive will be those that recognise the difference, and invest in handing that judgment on.

Tim Garcia is a partner at Hassans International Law Firm Limited, Gibraltar, where he advises on corporate and commercial matters, tax structuring and voluntary liquidations.

For more insights from our legal experts, please subscribe here.