The End of Associates? A perspective from the deal table

The anxiety is everywhere in legal circles right now. If AI can produce a first draft of a contract, a due diligence memo, or a research summary in seconds, what exactly is the apprenticeship path for a young lawyer? What is left to learn? And more pointedly — why would a client pay for it?

‍

I understand the concern. I do not share it. At least not in the way it is usually framed.

The Drudgery Is Not the Education

There is a version of legal training that has always been oversold. The young associate spending three years reviewing boilerplate, redlining standard provisions, and producing first drafts under time pressure was not, in most cases, developing deep judgment. They were developing speed, familiarity, and pattern recognition — useful things, but not the same as wisdom.

‍

What AI eliminates is the drudgery. And the drudgery was never the point. The point was always what came after it — the moment when a senior lawyer sat down with a junior one and explained not just what the clause said, but what it meant in practice. What a particular counterparty would actually push on. Where the real risk lived, and why.

‍

That conversation is not going anywhere. If anything, AI accelerates the path to it.

A Better Apprenticeship, Not the End of One

Here is what I actually see happening with the young lawyers who are engaging with AI seriously: they are getting smarter, faster.

‍

Instead of spending hours producing a first draft from scratch, they start with an AI-generated baseline and immediately begin interrogating it. Is this provision market? Is this the right structure for this stage? What is this clause missing given the cross-border complexity of this deal? They are asking the questions that used to come three years in — and they are asking them on day one.

‍

That is not a shortcut. That is compression. And compression of the right things — mechanical work, rote research, formatting — frees up time for the things that actually build a lawyer: judgment, pattern recognition, and the particular discipline of learning how to be wrong and recover from it.

‍

The young lawyers who use AI actively, skeptically, and with enough intellectual honesty to know when the output is wrong will arrive at sophistication faster than any prior generation. They will not be lesser lawyers for it. They will be better ones.

The Muscle You Have to Train

The risk is not that AI replaces young lawyers. The risk is that some young lawyers let it.

‍

Passive consumption of AI output — accepting its conclusions without interrogating its reasoning — is genuinely dangerous for anyone whose professional value rests on the quality of their judgment. And judgment atrophies when it goes unexercised. The associate who uses AI to generate a first draft but never questions its framing is not developing judgment. They are developing speed. Those are not the same thing.

‍

When I catch a flawed assumption in a due diligence summary or identify where a model has confidently reasoned from a bad premise, I am exercising the same analytical muscle I use when I am across the table from a counterparty trying to slip something past me. That muscle has to be trained deliberately. AI will not train it for you. But used the right way, it gives you more repetitions, not fewer.

‍

The habit of questioning AI output is, in practice, a habit of rigorous thinking. The young lawyers who develop that habit early will be formidable. The ones who do not will fall behind — not because AI replaced them, but because they replaced themselves.

What AI Is, and What It Is Not

I have written before that AI is not a wisdom machine. It is a leverage machine. It compresses time, scales output, and absorbs the routine — leaving the non-routine for the people in the room. That is genuinely valuable — but leverage is only as good as what it is applied to.

‍

A young lawyer who brings curiosity, skepticism, and genuine engagement to AI-assisted work is leveraging their developing judgment. They are moving faster toward the thing that actually matters. A young lawyer who brings passive consumption is leveraging nothing. They are producing output without building the foundation underneath it.

‍

The distinction will be visible. Senior lawyers will see it. Clients will eventually see it. And in a profession where reputation and judgment compound over time, the gap between those two paths will widen quickly.

What Partners Should Be Doing Differently

If the apprenticeship path is changing — and it is — then the responsibility on the senior side changes too. The old model of throwing associates into document review and hoping something stuck was always a blunt instrument. AI makes it obsolete.

‍

What replaces it is more deliberate. Partners need to be explicit about the thinking behind the work, not just the work itself. To explain not just what a provision says but why it matters in this deal, for this client, against this counterparty. To treat the AI-generated first draft as a teaching document — here is what the model got right, here is what it missed, here is why that matters.

‍

That is a better version of legal training. It requires more of partners, not less. But it produces better lawyers faster, and that is good for everyone — including clients.

The Answer to the Question

So — the end of associates? No. The end of a certain kind of associate work, yes. The kind that was always more about billing than building.

‍

What replaces it is an accelerated path to the judgment, sophistication, and pattern recognition that were always the actual goal. The young lawyers who embrace that path — who treat AI as a sparring partner rather than a ghostwriter — will be more valuable, not less.

‍

The ones who thrive will not be the ones who use AI the most. They will be the ones who question it the best.

‍

^{Lizbeth Flores is a corporate partner at PAG Law PLLC, where her practice focuses on cross-border technology, venture capital, and M&A transactions across Latin America. She has been named by Latinvex as one of Latin America's Top 100 Female Lawyers.}

‍

^{Disclaimer: This publication is provided by PAG Law PLLC for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship between PAG Law and the reader. The content reflects the views of the author as of the date of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments in law, regulation, or policy. Readers should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained herein without seeking professional legal counsel tailored to their specific circumstances and jurisdiction. PAG Law expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.}

‍