A popular framework suggests AI can handle low-stakes legal work while humans tackle the high-stakes issues. This idea, recently discussed in a LinkedIn post by Kevin Ahlstrom, is seductive but rests on a catastrophic misconception. It wrongly assumes a patent attorney’s job is just to find ‘correct answers.’ If that were true, the profession would already be obsolete.
But that’s not the game we’re playing. The core parts of the patent attorney job are fundamentally immune to automation. Here’s why:
Beyond Information
The core error is viewing a patent attorney’s job as merely an information retrieval or document generation task. It assumes the value lies in producing a “correct answer.”
But the real value of a patent attorney lies somewhere else. It boils down to two simple, non-negotiable requirements from the client, neither of which an algorithm can fulfill:
- Demonstrating Due Diligence: The need to say, “I hired the best possible advisor.”
- Ensuring Accountability: The need for an advisor who can be held responsible for mistakes.
Let’s unpack these.
Demonstrating Due Diligence: “I Hired the Best”
Imagine you’re a CEO about to launch a new product after a $10 million investment. You need a freedom-to-operate (FTO) opinion. An AI tool reports, “No blocking patents found. You are clear to launch.” You proceed.
When your board asks if you properly vetted the legal risks, the answer “I asked an AI” is unacceptable. It’s a failure of governance. The job of a leader isn’t just to get an answer; it’s to make a defensible decision.
Hiring a reputable patent attorney is that defensible decision. It is the very act of performing due diligence. It allows the client to confidently state, “I hired the best possible advisor for this question.” This declaration demonstrates to investors, partners, and the courts that the issue was taken with the utmost seriousness. An AI, no matter its claimed accuracy, is a black box. Relying on it is a gamble; hiring a top-tier attorney is a calculated, strategic, and defensible business move.
Listen to the podcast version of this article:
Ensuring Accountability: Outsourcing Risk
This brings us to the second, non-negotiable pillar: accountability. What happens when the advice is wrong?
In the example above, imagine the product launch is a resounding success. Then, six months later, a competitor serves you with an infringement lawsuit. Your entire operation grinds to a halt. You’re facing a court injunction, the prospect of crippling damages, and your investors are calling emergency meetings. The AI missed a key patent.
AI isn’t about replacing the attorney’s judgment, but about giving them a better decision basis.
Who is responsible? The algorithm? The software vendor’s End User License Agreement (EULA) almost certainly disclaims all liability. You’re left holding the bag.
Now, contrast this with hiring a human law firm. An FTO opinion from an attorney isn’t just a search result; it’s a legal shield backed by malpractice insurance and the firm’s reputation. It’s a service designed to formally outsource your risk. The client needs to be absolutely sure that the advisor can be held accountable for mistakes.
On a more general level, only rational beings with moral agency can be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, responsibility and accountability for an AI’s output always rests with its creators and users.
With a human attorney, you have that certainty. With an AI, you have an algorithm and an iron-clad disclaimer.
The True Future: AI as the Ultimate Patent Attorney’s Assistant
Let me be absolutely clear: this isn’t an anti-AI polemic. Far from it. The potential for AI to revolutionize the support functions of patent law is immense. AI will become the most powerful assistant imaginable.
AI isn’t about replacing the attorney’s judgment, but about giving them a better decision basis.
This is precisely the mindset I encoded into my tools for the profession. For example, the Claim Drafter (launching very soon) is designed specifically to act as this kind of assistant: It guides patent attorneys through a structured thinking process to turn creative chaos into a logical, claimable structure. It’s about augmenting the attorney, not replacing them.
Conclusion: The Unbreakable Human Element
So, will AI replace patent attorneys? No. Not for the reasons that truly matter. The core of the profession—the client’s need for demonstrable due diligence and bulletproof accountability—remains an intrinsically human domain.
The future isn’t about the demise of the patent attorney, but their elevation. The patent attorney of tomorrow, empowered with extraordinary AI assistance, will be more precise, faster, and more valuable than ever before.
And that is a future worth building.
– Bastian