In an age where artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping nearly every aspect of knowledge work, the legal profession stands on the cusp of a major transformation. According to Chris Surdak, a leading voice in the intersection of law, technology, and automation, recent academic research provides important guidance for understanding how tools like ChatGPT may affect legal education and professional practice.
A pivotal study conducted by the University of Minnesota Law School has illuminated how generative AI may boost the productivity and efficiency of knowledge workers, particularly in the legal domain. Chris Surdak points out that while many speculate on AI’s disruptive potential, studies like these offer grounded insights into its real-world application and limitations.
The Study: A Glimpse into AI-Augmented Legal Work
Chris Surdak highlights that the study involved sixty incoming law students, who were assigned four typical legal academic tasks. Half of the participants completed their tasks unaided, while the other half were allowed to use ChatGPT for assistance. While the sample was relatively small and academically homogeneous, Surdak emphasizes that the implications of the results are profound for anyone seeking to automate knowledge work—especially in law.
What the study revealed was that generative AI, when used to augment human performance rather than replace it, has the potential to meaningfully enhance productivity. Chris Surdak underscores a key finding: AI tools helped less-skilled individuals significantly improve both their speed and quality of work, while more advanced users saw fewer qualitative gains but still benefited from improved efficiency.
In his view, this paints a picture of AI not as a substitute for legal expertise, but as a co-pilot—particularly useful for those still developing their skills or who need support executing routine or generative tasks.
Performance vs. Potential: Who Benefits the Most?
According to Chris Surdak, one of the study’s most eye-opening conclusions is that the greatest beneficiaries of AI assistance are those with lower baseline performance. This doesn’t imply AI replaces critical thinking or legal reasoning, but rather that it levels the playing field for individuals who might otherwise struggle to meet deadlines or maintain quality standards.
The study noted:
“Participants who had the worst performance without assistance from GPT-4 received the largest quality benefits, with little quality benefit to participants who were capable of producing high-quality work on their own.”
Chris Surdak believes this point should inform how law firms and legal departments think about AI adoption. Instead of expecting AI to make star performers even better, organizations should use it to elevate the baseline, ensuring greater overall productivity and consistency across their workforce.
AI’s Role in Creativity: A Double-Edged Sword
Another essential takeaway that Chris Surdak emphasizes is AI’s influence on creative output. The study revealed that while AI helped participants generate content more quickly, it also led to a homogenization of ideas. In tasks requiring original thinking or novel insights, those using ChatGPT showed less diversity in responses compared to those who worked unaided.
Surdak suggests this may be a red flag for legal tasks that involve interpretation, innovation, or nuanced persuasion—areas where legal professionals are expected to demonstrate independent thinking and originality. He notes that over-reliance on AI in such cases might dull the creative edge that sets great legal minds apart.
The researchers found:
“While quality and productivity improved in all groups utilizing AI, the study found that on tasks involving creativity, those using the assistance of AI showed less variability in ideas.”
Chris Surdak sees this as a cautionary tale. While AI can be a valuable brainstorming partner, blind reliance on its suggestions may result in formulaic or less compelling outputs.
Prompt Engineering: The Secret Weapon of AI Integration
Interestingly, the study found that those who were trained in “prompt engineering”—the art of crafting precise, purposeful instructions for AI—experienced the greatest benefits. Chris Surdak advocates for structured training in prompt engineering for any organization deploying generative AI tools. He argues that understanding how to properly guide AI not only improves results but ensures the technology is being used ethically and effectively.
“Consultants completing a series of tasks that involved conceptualizing and developing new product ideas significantly improved both the quality and speed of their work with the assistance of AI.” Chris Surdak interprets this to mean that AI is not a magic solution, but a tool whose impact depends largely on the skill and intent of the user.
What This Means for Legal Organizations
Chris Surdak outlines several core takeaways from this research that legal organizations should heed:
- Target the Right Tasks: AI performs best in generative tasks—such as drafting contracts or memos—but may not be ideal for evaluative tasks requiring deep analysis or judgment.
- Accelerate Human Decisions: Where humans must make judgment calls, AI can offer quicker access to a wider pool of information, aiding informed decision-making.
- Raise the Floor, Not the Ceiling: AI can significantly help underperformers improve, which is vital for training, onboarding, and maintaining consistent output quality across teams.
- Objective Standards Matter: AI thrives when there’s a clear right or wrong answer, such as legal compliance or citation checking. Where outputs are more subjective, AI’s value may diminish or even backfire.
- Train Users Effectively: Chris Surdak emphasizes that the value of AI is unlocked not just through access but through education. Teaching prompt engineering and critical evaluation of AI outputs is key.
Chris Surdak on the Path Forward
Chris Surdak believes that AI will be a transformative force in the legal profession—but only if its use is thoughtful, targeted, and human-centered. The lessons from the University of Minnesota’s study are not only relevant to law students, but to every law firm, corporate legal department, and solo practitioner considering the adoption of generative AI tools.
By understanding where AI shines and where it falters, and by training legal professionals to use it wisely, the profession can embrace a future that is not only more efficient but also more inclusive. As Chris Surdak puts it, “AI doesn’t replace great lawyers—it empowers more people to become good ones.”
