The legal profession’s sole focus on legal judgment has created a critical gap in business judgment, the ability to translate legal reasoning into actions that businesses can use. Not surprisingly, AI makes it impossible to ignore both flaws.
Key insights:
-
-
-
Lawyers need to make two types of decisions. — AI is opening up the gap between legal and business decisions, and both will require lawyers to differentiate their value as automation increases.
-
Legal judgment and business judgment are not the same skill — Legal judgment produces lawyers who reason well about the law. Business judgment produces lawyers who can translate their reasoning into something that business partners can understand and act on.
-
Management judgment is essential in the AI era — Business judgment is the translation layer between legal analysis and business action and is emerging as a key part of the value proposition for lawyers in AI-powered professions.
-
-
Any conversation about AI and its impact on how lawyers learn about decisions that are happening now assumes what the experts know. judgement teeth. However, we spoke to two practitioners to demonstrate how different interpretations of the judgment can be. One talks about the ability to reason like a lawyer. Another is talking about the ability to act like a business partner.
Both of these interpretations are important, and thanks to AI, both are in the spotlight. However, the legal community’s almost entire focus is on legal judgmentwhile remaining almost completely blind. business decisionsmay be a consequential mistake.
Important debates about legal decisions
The question of how to teach legal judgment in the age of AI in legal education is urgent and well-founded. For decades, young lawyers have learned by doing, using legal intuition accumulated through repetition and proximity to experience.
“The whole model of corporate clients subsidizing the learning of young lawyers is being phased out.” [because of AI]” said Jen Leonard, founder of Creative Lawyers, a consulting and advisory service dedicated to transforming the future of legal practice. “Corporate clients already hated it, but now they have a way to say, ‘I will never pay this fee.'”
Research, drafting, and document review tasks, which once served as informal training grounds for legal decisions, are the tasks that AI is absorbing most rapidly. Experts are right to sound the alarm. AI-powered simulation and knowledge tools are emerging as a trusted response, and Leonard sees real excitement in them. Firms are now using decades of document management data to create AI-powered coaching environments that pattern-match partners’ style preferences and allow employees to tailor their work before it hits a senior attorney’s desk, she explains, adding that, unfortunately, inertia and industry resistance to change are emerging as structural impediments to this progress.
Management judgment skills are not developed
Olga Mack, CEO of TermScout, a general counsel and product builder of legal and decision systems who has spent years developing tools for legal and business teams, looks at the ruling from a completely different perspective, viewing the issue as a practice issue rather than an education issue.
It can be a consequential mistake for legal professionals to focus almost exclusively on legal decisions while remaining almost completely blind to business decisions.
“Judgment is not one skill,” says Mack. “A series of small decisions are made quickly: prioritizing what’s important, articulating trade-offs, mapping outcomes, and translating it all into something that business partners can act on.” Her explanation for the judgment is administrative decision-making, which happens to work within legal constraints. More specifically, she calls it: translation layer between legal analysis and business action or decision making under constraints. “If that translation is not done, the legal process will not be very effective,” she added.
Comparing these two perspectives side by side, legal judgment focuses on developing lawyers to reason appropriately about the law. Take your business decisions a step further by describing lawyers who make good reasoning and Who can translate that reasoning into something the business can implement?
AI is highlighting the gaps in both judgments while demonstrating the value of AI-enabled lawyers. AI may give you answers, but it’s judgment that determines which answers are important and what to do. And now that AI can deliver deliverables with some legal reasoning faster, cheaper, and at scale than any junior employee, the translation layer is no longer complementary to the lawyer’s value proposition. Therefore, AI-enabled professions need to address their value proposition.
Why do we need to address both opinions?
The two judgment issues are equally urgent on the same timeline. New lawyers entering practice today are expected to be AI-enabled right away, and if they only have legal reasoning ability and no translation layer, they will lose out to lawyers who have both legal and business acumen.
The good news is that legal judgment is already taught, but not equally. A key question is whether experts are willing to teach such judgments more clearly and consistently. Business judgment, like legal judgment, has always been distributed unevenly, with the proper understanding that it goes to those with the best mentorship, the most important early experience, and those closest to senior decision makers. By explicitly teaching judgment frameworks through intentional simulation, we can level that playing field in a way that osmotic models never can.
There is a word for this profession— judgement — teaching as two distinct cognitive abilities. Closing both types of gaps requires professionals to stop treating both as natural byproducts of legal experience and start treating them as fundamental competencies that must be taught intentionally, early, and at scale.
“What humans bring to a partnership with AI is judgment,” Mack says, demonstrating the kind of clarity that tends to only come after years of building something that works. “This is not an option. It’s mission critical.”
