Will AI replace Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants (United States, SOC 43-6012), 69% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 65 out of 100 (range 61–70, band: high). 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.

What should someone working in “Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 69% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 14% 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 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 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 14 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants

organizing and maintaining law libraries, making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter and assisting attorneys in collecting information. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: organizing and maintaining law libraries. The tasks, though, are not you.

Your move: three real directions from here ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 69%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 14%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 65 out of 100 (61–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 14 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 legal secretaries and administrative assistants 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.

It would be a lie to soften that; making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter is what this work rebuilds around. Your move starts there.

Your week, as this page understands it

Perform secretarial duties using legal terminology, procedures, and documents. Prepare legal papers and correspondence, such as summonses, complaints, motions, and subpoenas. May also assist with legal research. The job title says “legal secretaries” or “administrative assistants”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter. 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 legal secretaries and administrative assistants is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 69%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 14%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

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.

1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
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

10 tasks

Tasks 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.

Organizing and maintaining law libraries
This is reading one thing and writing another: law libraries in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Organize and maintain law libraries, documents, and case files.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high 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: Organizing documents and case files is exactly what document management software is built for, aside from any paper.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Receiving and placing telephone calls
This is reading one thing and writing another: telephone calls in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Receive and place telephone calls.” (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: Automated call handling deals with routine calls, though some callers still expect a person.
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.
Preparing proofread or processing legal documents, such as summonses, subpoenas, complaints, appeals, motions or pretrial agreements
This is reading one thing and writing another: proofread in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare, proofread, or process legal documents, such as summonses, subpoenas, complaints, appeals, motions, or pretrial agreements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high 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: Court documents follow standard forms that software drafts and proofreads well, with a lawyer signing them off.
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.
Preparing and distributing invoices to bill clients or pay account expenses
This is reading one thing and writing another: invoices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare and distribute invoices to bill clients or pay account expenses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high 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: Invoices are generated from recorded time and expenses, with a lawyer approving before they go out.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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 3/4.
Scheduling and making appointments
This is reading one thing and writing another: appointments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Schedule and make appointments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high 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: Scheduling from calendars is well handled by software, with a little back-and-forth with the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Drafting and typing office memos
This is reading one thing and writing another: office memos in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Draft and type office memos.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high 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: Short internal memos are exactly the kind of writing current tools produce at professional standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

2 tasks

Tasks 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.

Mailing fax or arranging for delivery of legal correspondence to clients, witnesses and court officials
The software now makes the first pass at fax, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Mail, fax, or arrange for delivery of legal correspondence to clients, witnesses, and court officials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high 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: Most legal correspondence now goes electronically, and arranging delivery is routine office work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assisting attorneys in collecting information
The software now makes the first pass at attorneys, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assist attorneys in collecting information such as employment, medical, and other records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 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: Requesting and tracking records is routine chasing work, though some sources still need a person to push.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

2 tasks

Tasks 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.

Making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter
This work happens in the physical world: photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Make photocopies of correspondence, documents, and other printed matter.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (21–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Digital copies are effortless, but photocopying printed matter means someone feeding paper into a machine.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Attending legal meetings, such as client interviews, hearings or depositions and taking notes
This work happens in the physical world: legal meetings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Attend legal meetings, such as client interviews, hearings, or depositions, and take notes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Note-taking from a meeting is now largely automatic, but hearings and depositions still need someone attending.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 4 tasks

Completing various forms, such as accident reports, trial and courtroom requests and applications for clients
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: various forms in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Complete various forms, such as accident reports, trial and courtroom requests, and applications for clients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high 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: Filling in standard forms from information already on file is routine work software completes accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Making travel arrangements for attorneys
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: travel arrangements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Make travel arrangements for attorneys.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high 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: Booking flights and hotels against a preference list is routine work that travel software already automates.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Reviewing legal publications and performing database searches to identify laws and court decisions relevant to pending cases
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal publications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Review legal publications and perform database searches to identify laws and court decisions relevant to pending cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high 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 legal databases and pulling out relevant decisions suits software, with a lawyer judging relevance.
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.
Submitting articles and information from searches to attorneys for review and approval
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: articles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Submit articles and information from searches to attorneys for review and approval for use.” (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: Searching sources and passing on relevant material is well handled by software, with the lawyer deciding what to use.
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.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $55,570a 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: 156,280in 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: law libraries in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: organizing and maintaining law libraries and receiving and placing telephone calls. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter get done. 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

The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: organizing and maintaining law libraries is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.

So, given all that: 69% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 14% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.

This week: one thing

Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of law libraries you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.

What you end up holding: a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
How long it takes: an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client

If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of law libraries, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.

Over the next 90 days

Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is organizing and maintaining law libraries” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.

Over the next 12 months

Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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 legal secretaries and administrative assistants (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was medical transcriptionists: only about 16% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 27.3% less. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 69% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “mail, fax, or arrange for delivery of legal correspondence to clients, witnesses…” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.

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.

Medical Transcriptionists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already schedule and make appointments, and their equivalent is to receive patients, schedule appointments, and maintain patient records. Across both published task lists that is about 16% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 16% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 79% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (71/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $40,410 against your $55,570, 27.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already mail, fax, or arrange for delivery of legal correspondence to clients, witnesses, and…, and their equivalent is to transmit correspondence or medical records by mail, e-mail, or fax. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $45,930 against your $55,570, 17.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already make photocopies of correspondence, documents, and other printed matter, and their equivalent is to make copies of correspondence or other printed material. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 58% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,540 against your $55,570, 14.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

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: 69% of its task weight, across 14 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: making photocopies of correspondence, documents and other printed matter is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
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 Legal secretaries 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

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Legal secretaries. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

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:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

A nearby route

There's no Space built for legal secretaries yet.

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

The closest match is Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers, a community for coordinators, administrators and team leads who run their working day in Outlook, Teams, meetings, files and task lists. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: the diary, document and follow-up half of the job. It covers nothing legal-specific - no procedure, no filings. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

Try Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for legal secretaries 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 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants (United States, SOC 43-6012), 69% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 65 out of 100 (range 61–70, band: high). 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 “Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Draft and type office memos” (93/100, very high); “Complete various forms, such as accident reports, trial and courtroom requests, and applications for clients” (88/100, very high); “Prepare and distribute invoices to bill clients or pay account expenses” (81/100, very 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 “Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” stay human?: About 14% 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: “Make photocopies of correspondence, documents, and other printed matter” (25/100, low); “Attend legal meetings, such as client interviews, hearings, or depositions, and take notes” (34/100, low); “Assist attorneys in collecting information such as employment, medical, and other records” (42/100, partial). 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 “Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 69% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 14% 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 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 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 14 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

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
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 2026-08-04.
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.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

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}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. 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.