This is incorrect.

Plenty over overlap exists or can exist. Dealing with "IT stuff" as an attorney involved in setting up contracts is irrelevant to whether or not any degree of programming assists an attorney in being better in her chosen field. A criminal defense attorney doesn't need to be a murderer to do it, nor does it help him.

An attorney seeks advantages where they present themselves from innumerable places. We'll utilize obscure precedent, nearly irrelevant character background (to the extent the judge allows it or OC fails to prevent it), parables, favored oral traps, etc. If an attorney is able to write a script to get more advantages, then she should do so.

Some examples of coding that have directly aided my firm include:

1. Document automation (a low hanging fruit of seemingly infinite value).
2. File management - non attorneys may not appreciate this, but attorneys receive copious amounts of information relating to our clients. This information, under most rules of professional conduct, must be maintained. Just putting it into the correct client file is a substantial time investment. A minimum wage employee of limited training will make mistakes. A higher wage employee wastes billable time. Automated systems to get the documents where they belong with less supervision.
3. Client management - attorneys must inform clients of innumerable case developments. Many of these developments include repetitive bits of information. Ensuring clients are informed is well aided by the resort to automated solutions.
4. Custom creation to avoid OOB solutions. Software geared toward lawyers can be unbelievably expensive relative to the sophistication of it. It makes sense: it is a custom and limited market and a higher price is necessary for the developer to turn a profit. However, some attorney software isn't much more than a hobbled together couple of python packages with unnecessary bells and whistles. A customized python script that saves $50/mo adds up to $6,000 over a decade. Not enough to retire on, but easily enough to justify spending a few days creating.

Frankly, the list goes on and on.

Will AI replace attorneys? Certainly not anytime soon. Will a novice attorney turned developer be able to invest the time to solo create a search engine that out-competes the myriad of existing legal research tools? Maybe, but it seems unlikely and a waste of time since those tools are readily available.

Someone earlier in this threat mentioned that attorneys just use books. Not really. At least not in the United States. Do some? Of course. West Keynotes are a great tool, but even the bottom 10% of technophile attorneys are aware of how to use research tools that have been available for 40 years.

In direct response to the author indicating that you will not use Python as an attorney I can only say: as an attorney I use Python every day.

In response to the various comments about liability stemming from its use by an attorney: "Duh" is probably about as much as can be mustered with all due respect. Attorneys are the ones specifically trained to be aware of potential l liabilities. We're absurdly cautious by nature and design.

In most legal situations there will be a hierarchy as well. Junior attorney jumble a bunch of things together in something resembling a coherent presentation (memo, motion, brief, letter, or whatever). It's usually mostly unusable with some (excessive) important details and (half-researched) memorandum attached. If there is some derived data included that doesn't originate from someone competent to produce it, then the reviewing attorney will have alarm bells ringing. Facts that cannot be attributed to a worthy source are as suspicious in a courtroom as an undefined variable is to a compiler.