Not The End of Lawyers

Over the years, I’ve had the chance, fortunate in many ways, to meet many top attorneys. Due to all the cases they have covered, they start to see the world through the lens of game theory. In many situations, business decisions and conflicts are approached as zero-sum or chicken games. Your gain is my loss, and my gain is your loss. It is a mindset that does not focus on value creation.

1. Art of the deal

This way of thinking is not that different from the logic in Donald Trump’s Art of the Deal. And I think it is in large part the result of placing so much importance on law in the United States. It is a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, and where law operates almost like a free market. While expensive, some would argue that the system does result in justice. Others would say no, that law has just become a battle of who has the most money.

And maybe both views miss something more basic, which is that law in the United States has always been shaped by power. In countries where authority is more centralized, like Singapore, there is much less emphasis on legal interpretation and challenge. The ruling party sets the tone. But in the United States, it is still the Wild West. Anyone can challenge anything.

2. What is law?

That raises a more important question: what is law? How should individuals behave?

Imagine you are at a red light. No cars are coming. You jaywalk. Even in Singapore, a police officer might see you do it and still choose not to stop you. Maybe they would. Maybe they would just nod and move on. In that moment, you technically broke the law, but your actions might still be considered reasonable.

3. There is a hierarchy.

At the top is what is written down, which changes slowly. Then there is how people interpret it when they have nothing to win or lose. Then there is how it gets enforced by people with incentives. A police officer at the end of the month might have a quota and pull you over just to hit it. That is documented. Especially in the United States.

Then there is the battlefield. When multiple actors are involved and there are currents and pressures, like when Google and Oracle fought over Java. And below that is when the law is not even clear yet. Like with generative AI. If an AI trains on Elvis Presley’s interviews and lyrics, and then writes a song that sounds like him but is about love in a way that feels more like Taylor Swift, who owns it?

It is not clear. In the United States, that is still being debated. In Singapore, they have said that derived works using public domain or publicly available data are allowed. That is their stance. You cannot steal data, but if it is public and you generate something new with it, you are in the clear.

4. Technology and physics shapes human laws

But there is a deeper layer: the engineering layer. What is technically possible shapes all of this. Over time, technical progress changes law and society itself.

It used to be that stealing a horse was a big deal. There were whole laws around it. Today it sounds silly. That is because technology has made that kind of theft mostly irrelevant. The rules changed because the world changed.

Then there is another layer still. The physical world. The laws of physics and chemistry. You can be legally allowed to cross the road, but if a truck hits you, the physical law takes over. That is the final authority.

We often think of law as something tied to documents, to contracts, to immigration rules. But what really governs us goes far deeper. The written law matters, but incentives matter more. And technology changes everything.

5. AI is not replacing programmers

That is what we are seeing now. A few years ago, people were saying that there would be far fewer programmers. AI was going to replace them. I wrote about that. And yes, tools like Copilot have made people faster. But we are not seeing fewer jobs. In fact, it feels like we are going to need many more programmers. Demand for code and for new systems is increasing fast.

And because people can type faster, we are seeing more innovation. And that means we need more people who are patient, detail-oriented, ethical, and focused. We need people who are willing to build and maintain what matters.

6. AI is not replacing lawyers either

And the same thing is happening in law.

There are some short-term changes. Big firms like Baker McKenzie may need fewer junior attorneys. Senior lawyers with better tools can do more on their own. But maybe this is less about law shrinking and more about how some institutions were not adding much value. Just like Google. If you can run the same thing with two thousand people instead of a hundred thousand, then maybe you should. And those who leave may actually create more value outside.

That does not mean law is going away.

There will still be judgment calls. There will still be hard cases. And there will still be debates about what is right and what is wrong. Maybe salaries will drop. Maybe the structure will change. But we are still going to need people who care, who pay attention, and who want to help others navigate all this complexity.

7. More jobs for everyone 🎉

So the question is not whether there will be fewer jobs. It is where the new work will happen, and who will step into it. My guess is the ones who will thrive are the people who are calm under pressure, who take their time, who care about doing things the right way, and who want to build something meaningful.