Artificial intelligence seems to be everywhere, right?

Depending on the headline, it is either about to transform working life or bring huge parts of it to an end (or, indeed worse depending on which media you consume!).

But in the legal sector, the conversation is becoming rather more practical. Recent reporting from the Financial Times has focused not only on firms embedding AI into legal delivery, but on the pressure that creates around pricing. If technology helps lawyers complete certain tasks more quickly, clients are increasingly asking how those efficiencies should be reflected in what they pay.

That matters because it moves the AI conversation beyond productivity. It starts to raise questions about which work should be automated, where lawyers add the greatest value and how firms structure teams around that work.

At the same time, new AI-native legal businesses are beginning to emerge. In October, former Allen & Overy senior partner Wim Dejonghe launched Falcon, combining AI-enabled contract review with qualified lawyer oversight.

None of this suggests the traditional law firm model is about to disappear. But it does show that the conversation is moving quickly from whether AI has a place in legal work to how firms organise, price and resource that work when it does.

For commercial property teams, that raises some interesting recruitment and development questions.

The work can involve substantial volumes of leases, title information, contracts and due diligence material, making it an obvious area in which technology could support some of the more process-heavy tasks. But if AI changes where lawyers spend their time, what could that mean for the skills firms need, the work junior lawyers do and the way future commercial property talent is developed?

AI can support the process, but judgement still matters

There is an important distinction between using AI to help process information and relying on it to make legal or commercial judgements.

A tool may be able to extract key information, assist with reviewing documents or help organise a large volume of material. The lawyer still needs to understand what that information means in the context of the transaction, identify the issues that genuinely matter to the client and know when something requires further investigation.

That distinction is likely to matter increasingly when firms recruit.

Technical commercial property experience will remain fundamental, but alongside it firms may place greater value on lawyers who can apply sound judgement, communicate commercially with clients and use technology confidently without becoming over-reliant on it.

The Law Society’s guidance on building AI skills within legal teams makes much the same point. It argues that lawyers increasingly need to understand how to delegate suitable tasks to AI, assess the output and recognise when the technology has got something wrong.

What could this mean at entry level?

This is where the discussion becomes particularly interesting from a recruitment and development perspective.

Some of the work AI is well suited to supporting is also the type of work that has traditionally sat with paralegals, trainees and junior lawyers. First-stage document review, extracting information and working through large volumes of material have often been part of the early years of a legal career.

If technology reduces the time spent on some of that busywork, it does not automatically follow that firms will need fewer junior people.

It could instead mean that junior roles become more sophisticated earlier, with less time spent processing information and more opportunity to become involved in analysis, client communication and the wider commercial context of a transaction.

There are already examples of junior lawyers playing an active role in AI adoption. The Law Society recently highlighted how trainees at VWV were involved in helping to shape the firm’s approach to AI, looking at where the technology could support existing tasks and improve client service

But there is an important question behind that opportunity.

If some of the busywork disappears, where does the learning happen?

Repetitive work is not necessarily glamorous, but repetition has traditionally played a part in developing legal judgement.

A junior commercial property lawyer may read dozens of leases, review title documentation repeatedly or work through numerous due diligence exercises before they begin instinctively to recognise what is unusual, what is important and what needs escalating.

If technology shortens part of that process, firms may need to become more deliberate about replacing the learning that came with it.

That might mean more structured supervision, earlier exposure to client conversations, greater explanation of the reasoning behind decisions and making sure junior lawyers still understand the underlying documents rather than relying solely on AI-generated summaries.

This matters particularly because the SRA’s current guidance is clear that responsibility for legal work remains with the professionals and firms using the technology. Its August warning notice points to cases involving AI-generated inaccuracies, including false citations, and concerns around client confidentiality. The SRA also makes clear that those supervising junior or non-authorised colleagues can breach their regulatory obligations if inaccurate material is put forward without adequate review or supervision.

That puts even greater weight on supervision. If junior lawyers are working with AI-generated material, firms need to make sure they understand how to challenge it, when to escalate concerns and why the underlying legal issue matters, rather than simply accepting the output in front of them.

For commercial property teams, that reinforces the wider point: if technology removes some of the traditional groundwork, the learning and oversight around it need to become more deliberate.

Could hiring expectations begin to change too?

It is too early to say that AI is fundamentally changing the structure of commercial property teams, and firms will inevitably adopt the technology at different speeds.

What we can reasonably expect is that the conversation around skills will continue to develop.

At junior level, adaptability, curiosity and the confidence to question an AI-generated answer may become increasingly valuable alongside technical grounding.

For more experienced lawyers, the emphasis may remain on the areas where human expertise adds the most value: commercial judgement, negotiation, client relationships, supervision and the ability to manage more complex transactions.

For firms, the challenge is not simply deciding which technology to adopt. It is making sure the people strategy develops alongside it.

Thinking beyond the next vacancy

There is a longer-term recruitment point here too.

Even if technology eventually reduces the amount of routine work undertaken at junior level, firms will still need experienced commercial property solicitors, senior associates and partners in the years ahead.

Those lawyers need to develop somewhere.

That makes it important not to look at AI purely through the lens of short-term efficiency. Firms also need to think about how today’s trainees, paralegals and junior solicitors gain the experience and judgement they will need to become tomorrow’s senior talent.

For commercial property teams considering their next hire, the question may therefore be less about whether AI changes the number of people required and more about how the role itself could evolve, which skills will matter most and how those skills will be developed over time.

At Clayton Legal, we work with law firms and legal professionals across the commercial (and residential) property market, giving us insight into both the skills employers are looking for and the career priorities shaping candidate decisions.

Whether you’re reviewing your commercial property team, planning your next hire or considering your own career options, contact me for a confidential conversation about how I can help.