Weil and the human factor AI cannot replace
por nicola di molfetta
There is a story coming out of the United States that should give the entire legal market pause. It is the story of Weil (formerly Weil Gotshal & Manges), one of America’s most prestigious law firms, with a 95-year history and revenues of $2.1 billion in its latest financial year.
A month ago, it was a giant. Today, it is working towards its own “orderly” dissolution.
And the most surprising thing is that this is not a classic financial collapse. As far as is currently known, Weil had no significant debt, nor a mountain of liabilities to deal with. It did not run out of cash. What it progressively ran out of was lawyers.
Partner after partner, group after group of professionals, people began to leave. And when those departures turned into an avalanche, the very possibility of keeping the firm together began to disappear.
Market observers have put forward various explanations. Some point out that an organisation can be forced to shut down even when it appears financially sound. Others highlight how more profitable competitors can exploit the perception of weakness at a firm to lure away its best professionals.
But there is an even more interesting aspect: dependence on so-called rainmakers, the partners who bring in clients, revenues and relationships. When they leave, it is often not just them who go. The teams around them move too, along with clients and entire parts of the organisation.
And this is where the Weil story becomes particularly relevant.
Because it comes at precisely the moment when the legal market is debating artificial intelligence and the possibility that lawyers may be replaced by algorithms. The conventional narrative is familiar: AI will do the work of associates, reduce the number of professionals required, compress costs and change law firms forever.
All true, at least in part. But perhaps we are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
Artificial intelligence can carry out research, analyse documents, draft contracts and accelerate due diligence. It can make a lawyer more efficient. But it cannot automatically replace a client’s trust, a professional relationship built over 20 years, the ability to negotiate a complex agreement or the willingness to take responsibility for a decision.
And, above all, it cannot hold a law firm together.
The lesson from Weil is almost paradoxical: while we ask ourselves how much work can be handed over to machines, one of the great institutions of the US legal market is reminding us that the real capital of a law firm is still made up of people. And that this capital can evaporate far more quickly than we might imagine.
Of course, this does not mean that law firms should turn away from technology. Quite the opposite. It means that investing in algorithms is not enough if firms fail to invest in their organisations, in developing talent, in sharing client relationships and in their ability to retain professionals.
Because the future will not necessarily reward the firms with the most lawyers or the most sophisticated artificial intelligence. It will reward those capable of integrating technology and human capital without losing their identity.
