The 2020 virtual practice example really highlights how dangerous anchoring can be. I'd add that the problem isn't just about recognizing when conditions have shifted, but also knowing which aspects of the "precedent" actually matter. Like, maybe the income drop pattern from past solo departures wasn't about going solo at all, but about geographic constraints and overhead costs that remote work fundamentally changed.
Hi Tom! I really loved reading the post. I think this is one of the reasons as well as to why there's a perception that lawyers hate technology. They don't hate technology. Lawyers think like this because of their way of thinking (Precedential reasoning). The practitioners that reshape their current beliefs based on new information and take a forward-looking approach will be the ones that enjoy the productivity gains from AI.
I write on LegalTech, Law and Innovation as well. My latest post analyzes AI-driven due diligence tools and how these tools are reshaping M&A workflows. Would love to chat with you on this!
This is brilliant framing of something I've watche dlawyers struggle with constantly. The cognitive switching cost between these two modes is real, and I think you're spot-on that legal training actually makes it harder to recognize when you've crossed from a legal question into a strategic one. The 2020 virtual practice exampl ereally drives this home because the precedent said "don't do it" right up until the moment when all the underlying conditions shifted. That's exactly when backward-looking reasoning becomes most dangerous, yet also when we're most likely to cling to it for psychological comfort.
The 2020 virtual practice example really highlights how dangerous anchoring can be. I'd add that the problem isn't just about recognizing when conditions have shifted, but also knowing which aspects of the "precedent" actually matter. Like, maybe the income drop pattern from past solo departures wasn't about going solo at all, but about geographic constraints and overhead costs that remote work fundamentally changed.
Hi Tom! I really loved reading the post. I think this is one of the reasons as well as to why there's a perception that lawyers hate technology. They don't hate technology. Lawyers think like this because of their way of thinking (Precedential reasoning). The practitioners that reshape their current beliefs based on new information and take a forward-looking approach will be the ones that enjoy the productivity gains from AI.
I write on LegalTech, Law and Innovation as well. My latest post analyzes AI-driven due diligence tools and how these tools are reshaping M&A workflows. Would love to chat with you on this!
https://harshithviswanath.substack.com/p/ai-driven-legal-due-diligence-the
This is brilliant framing of something I've watche dlawyers struggle with constantly. The cognitive switching cost between these two modes is real, and I think you're spot-on that legal training actually makes it harder to recognize when you've crossed from a legal question into a strategic one. The 2020 virtual practice exampl ereally drives this home because the precedent said "don't do it" right up until the moment when all the underlying conditions shifted. That's exactly when backward-looking reasoning becomes most dangerous, yet also when we're most likely to cling to it for psychological comfort.