US dataswitch to UK
Lawyers
interpreting laws, rulings and regulations for individuals and businesses, presenting evidence to defend clients or prosecute defendants in criminal or civil litigation and advising clients concerning business transactions. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case is work software can't reach.
What shifts is studying Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations and ordinances of quasi-judicial bodies to determine ramifications for cases. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Represent clients in criminal and civil litigation and other legal proceedings, draw up legal documents, or manage or advise clients on legal transactions. May specialize in a single area or may practice broadly in many areas of law. The job title says “lawyers”. The real job is the part underneath: gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But lawyers is not one task. It is 22 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 15%
- changing shape
- 21%
- staying human
- 64%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 29 out of 100 (23–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 22 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for lawyers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
3 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing, drafting and reviewing legal documents, such as wills, deeds, patent applications, mortgages, leases and contracts
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare, draft, and review legal documents, such as wills, deeds, patent applications, mortgages, leases, and contracts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (55–69 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Wills, leases and contracts follow well-established forms, so strong drafts are achievable with a lawyer reviewing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Studying Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations and ordinances of quasi-judicial bodies to determine ramifications for cases
This is reading one thing and writing another: constitution, statutes, decisions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations, and ordinances of quasi-judicial bodies to determine ramifications for cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (65–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Statutes, rulings and regulations are all published, and searching and summarising them suits software well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Performing administrative and management functions related to the practice of law
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative and management functions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform administrative and management functions related to the practice of law.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running the business side of a practice is ordinary administration and management work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
5 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Analyzing the probable outcomes of cases
The software now makes the first pass at the probable outcomes of cases, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze the probable outcomes of cases, using knowledge of legal precedents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Weighing likely case outcomes against precedent is research and analysis, though a lawyer must own the conclusion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining legal data to determine advisability of defending or prosecuting lawsuit
The software now makes the first pass at legal data, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine legal data to determine advisability of defending or prosecuting lawsuit.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assessing whether a case is worth bringing is document analysis, with the judgement resting on a lawyer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Searching for and examining public and other legal records to write opinions or establish ownership
The software now makes the first pass at and examining public, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Search for and examine public and other legal records to write opinions or establish ownership.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 54 out of 100 (47–61 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Searching public records and title documents is document work, with a lawyer signing the resulting opinion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing legal briefs and opinions
The software now makes the first pass at legal briefs, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare legal briefs and opinions, and file appeals in state and federal courts of appeal.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Briefs draw on published case law, but a qualified lawyer must sign what is filed with the court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying human
14 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Interpreting laws, rulings and regulations for individuals and businesses
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for laws, rulings and regulations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interpret laws, rulings and regulations for individuals and businesses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Explaining what the law means for someone is legal advice, which only a qualified lawyer may give.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case
This work happens in the physical world: evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Gather evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Interviewing clients and witnesses to pin down facts depends on being with them and earning their candour.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with colleagues with specialties in appropriate areas of legal issue to establish and verify bases for legal proceedings
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for colleagues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with colleagues with specialties in appropriate areas of legal issue to establish and verify bases for legal proceedings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Checking a legal position with specialist colleagues is a conversation between qualified people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 12 tasks
Helping develop federal and state programs
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at develop federal, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Help develop federal and state programs, draft and interpret laws and legislation, and establish enforcement procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting legislation and enforcement procedures is document work built on published law and policy.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating findings and developing strategies and arguments in preparation for presentation of cases
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for findings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate findings and develop strategies and arguments in preparation for presentation of cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Building the argument draws on documented law, but the strategy is a qualified lawyer's professional call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Negotiating contractual agreements
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for contractual agreements, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Negotiate contractual agreements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drafting and redlining contract terms is well supported by software; the bargaining is done between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising clients concerning business transactions
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients concerning business transactions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise clients concerning business transactions, claim liability, advisability of prosecuting or defending lawsuits, or legal rights and obligations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clients act on advice from a lawyer they trust, and giving that advice is restricted to qualified people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising legal assistants
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal assistants, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise legal assistants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising legal assistants means overseeing specific people, and lawyers are required to supervise their staff.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Probating wills and representing and advising executors and administrators of estates
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for wills, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Probate wills and represent and advise executors and administrators of estates.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Probate work involves court steps and advising executors, both reserved to qualified lawyers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Negotiating settlements of civil disputes
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for settlements of civil disputes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Negotiate settlements of civil disputes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Settling a dispute turns on live give-and-take between people, handled by qualified lawyers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Acting as agent, trustee, guardian or executor for businesses or individuals
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for agent, trustee, guardian or executor, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Act as agent, trustee, guardian, or executor for businesses or individuals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Acting as trustee, guardian or executor is a legal role a named person has to hold.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting and summarizing cases to judges and juries
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: cases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Present and summarize cases to judges and juries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Summing up a case to a judge or jury is advocacy in the courtroom by a qualified lawyer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing clients in court or before government agencies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Represent clients in court or before government agencies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Appearing for a client is legally an act only a qualified lawyer can perform, in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Selecting jurors, argue motions, meet with judges and questioning witnesses during the course of a trial
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: jurors, argue motions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Select jurors, argue motions, meet with judges, and question witnesses during the course of a trial.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–5 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Jury selection, motions and questioning witnesses happen live in court and only a qualified lawyer may do them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting evidence to defend clients or prosecute defendants in criminal or civil litigation
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Present evidence to defend clients or prosecute defendants in criminal or civil litigation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–5 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Putting evidence before a court is courtroom advocacy reserved to qualified lawyers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $159,670a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 754,500in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: constitution, statutes, decisions in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: studying Constitution, statutes, decisions and preparing, drafting and reviewing legal documents. What it cannot do is be answerable: evidence needs a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 15% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 22 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Studying Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations and ordinances of quasi-judicial bodies to determine ramifications for cases is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to constitution, statutes, decisions, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether laws, rulings and regulations are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near analyzing the probable outcomes of cases. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to lawyers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was tax examiners and collectors, and revenue agents: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 60.9% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 29/100 here, with only 15% of the task list in the top band, and “interpret laws, rulings and regulations for individuals and businesses” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interpret laws, rulings and regulations for individuals and businesses, and their equivalent is to collect taxes from individuals or businesses according to prescribed laws and regulations. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $62,370 against your $159,670, 60.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 56,610 of those jobs against 754,500 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 8% as many seats.
Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already negotiate settlements of civil disputes, and their equivalent is to settle disputes between opposing attorneys. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 24,030 of those jobs against 754,500 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 3% as many seats.
Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already negotiate contractual agreements, and their equivalent is to negotiate with managers, promoters, union officials, and other persons regarding clients' contractual rights…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $82,890 against your $159,670, 48.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 12,620 of those jobs against 754,500 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 2% as many seats.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 15% of its task weight, across 22 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like gathering evidence to formulate defense or to initiate legal actions by such means as interviewing clients and witnesses to ascertain the facts of a case arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Solicitors and lawyers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Solicitors and lawyers and Barristers and judges. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for lawyers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 15% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for lawyers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for lawyers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Lawyers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 22 official task statements scored for Lawyers (United States, SOC 23-1011), 15% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 29 out of 100 (range 23–35, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Lawyers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Study Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations, and ordinances of quasi-judicial bodies to determine ramifications for cases” (72/100, high); “Perform administrative and management functions related to the practice of law” (64/100, high); “Prepare, draft, and review legal documents, such as wills, deeds, patent applications, mortgages, leases, and contracts” (62/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Lawyers” stay human?
- About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Present evidence to defend clients or prosecute defendants in criminal or civil litigation” (1/100, minimal); “Select jurors, argue motions, meet with judges, and question witnesses during the course of a trial” (1/100, minimal); “Represent clients in court or before government agencies” (1/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Lawyers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 15% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Lawyers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 22 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.