Esade’s AI warning for law firms starts with the next generation

AI can help a junior lawyer produce a convincing first draft. The harder question is whether the work still teaches them enough to become a convincing senior lawyer.

Esade raises that issue in an article published on 6 November about AI in legal practice. Alongside uses such as research, contract review and drafting, it highlights the risk of dependence on tools that absorb the activities through which professional judgement develops. ¹

The concern has a measurable constituency. Karnov Group’s European Legal Profession Survey, published on 1 October, found that 64% of respondents saw a high or very high risk that AI would leave younger lawyers with insufficient legal knowledge and skills. The survey covered 3,129 legal professionals in five European countries, with fieldwork in spring 2026. ²

That measures practitioners’ concerns, rather than an observed decline in competence caused by AI. It is still a useful prompt for employers who are redesigning entry-level work around faster outputs.

An assignment can have two purposes: deliver something the client needs and develop the person doing it. If AI removes much of the research and drafting, a satisfactory document may conceal a missing learning experience.

Esade describes changes to its law teaching and assessment, including greater attention to oral arguments, simulations and the learning process. The broader organisational question is which experiences a firm wants its juniors to retain, even when software can produce an acceptable answer.

Consider a training exercise in which a junior must explain the reasoning behind a generated clause, identify what would change their recommendation and defend an alternative. That is an illustrative approach, not a reported outcome of Esade’s programme.

The value of the work then includes the judgement demonstrated along the way. Without that distinction, an efficient department can quietly weaken its own succession plan.