Abandoning young talent in favour of AI is short-termism at its worst
Tony McClements argues that treating graduates as expendable overheads in comparison to AI systems is “ultimately managerial vandalism”.
AI is now embedded across all aspects of our lives. The speed with which it is taking grip is rapid and potentially scary.
The regulated sector, including law and accountancy firms, along with banks and corporate legal departments, are all now heavily reliant on AI-empowered systems. We are advised constantly by those pushing it that AI is not a danger. Conversely, there are others who warn that civilisation itself is under threat.
As a former fraud detective with 33 years’ experience in UK police forces, and 11 since as head of investigations with an internal law firm specialising in asset recovery, I have seen decades of change.
When I started my career, computers were not readily available in policing, outside of control rooms. Murder investigations were run on paper systems, making use of Rolodex to capture important leads. It was dinosaur-like compared to what we have today.
The news today is littered with examples of professionals in the litigation and compliance sectors falling foul of using AI. Those in the legal profession and the courts are starting to realize that human input cannot be discarded just yet. And herein lies a lesson.
After Hurricane Irma hit the BVI in 2017, causing widespread devastation and forcing many of us to leave the islands, I was approached to help with some guest lecturing at the University of Lancashire’s School of Justice, teaching fraud and financial investigation.
As a result of that connection, our firm has now directly employed several young people from the university’s Financial Investigation MSc course. We train and nurture these new team members, and in turn they help us broaden the skill base of our teams, and help train up their successors, too.
That is how we should develop talent, in my opinion. My fear, though, is that such young talent is increasingly being ignored in favor of using AI to save money.
My fear is that such young talent is increasingly being ignored in favor of using AI to save money.
Why employ young people when you can pay a small subscription to access AI systems that carry out the same tasks?
My concern is that graduates are increasingly being viewed not as future leaders, but as expendable overheads in comparison to AI systems. That is not innovation, it is short-termism, and ultimately managerial vandalism.
The issue is especially acute in law firms. The legal profession has always relied on apprenticeship. Young lawyers learn by doing the apparently unglamorous work: document review, bundling, first-draft research notes, disclosure schedules, etc. This work may be repetitive, but it is not pointless.
The learning process is one and the same as that used in law enforcement. It teaches judgement, discipline, professional skepticism, and attention to detail. It is where a lawyer learns what matters, and just as importantly, what does not.
That is why recent media discussion around AI and Big Law should concern the legal and regulatory professions. Axios recently reported that AI is threatening the litigation talent pool. Junior and summer associate work has historically served two functions: billing and training. If AI strips out that base layer of work, firms may find themselves with impressive efficiency metrics but a hollowed-out profession.
The International Bar Association has made a similar point in its discussion of the opportunities and threats that AI poses to young lawyers. A lawyer who has never wrestled with poor instructions, messy evidence, or unreliable witnesses will not magically acquire judgement because an AI platform gives them a polished answer.
Clients do not simply pay for words on a page. They pay for responsibility, strategy, risk assessment, ethical constraint, commercial instinct, and professional courage. AI can help but it cannot take professional responsibility for advice. Nor can it sit with a client, understand their fears, detect dishonesty, sense hesitation, or decide that the technically available argument is tactically unwise.
If AI strips out that base layer of work, firms may find themselves with impressive efficiency metrics but a hollowed-out profession.
People are confusing speed with competence. A junior lawyer assisted by AI may produce a research note in 20 minutes rather than three hours, but if the junior lawyer does not understand the authorities, has not checked the citations, cannot explain the reasoning, and does not appreciate the factual assumptions, the firm has not created efficiency, it has created a liability.
The Law Society has cited PwC’s Law Firm Survey 2025 suggesting that the UK’s top 100 firms expect AI to reduce chargeable hours by around 16%. If these hours are used to shrink the workforce for higher profit, the profession will slowly consume itself. Graduate schemes and entry-level compliance posts are not charitable gestures. They are the mechanism by which institutions renew themselves.
Clients do not simply pay for words on a page, they pay for ethical constraint, commercial instinct, and professional courage.
The strongest organisations of tomorrow will not be those that choose between humans and AI. They will be those that integrate the use of AI to streamline processes, so that young professionals can focus on their training and aspirations under the watchful eye of those blessed with experience, who also understand ethical boundaries.
Employing young people is imperative to the future of the legal and regulatory professions. They are an investment in continuity and succession planning.
