Future of Work: Reverse automation in practice – how legal teams are reimagining the human-machine workflow

The conversation about AI and automation in law is still largely framed by predictions about what might be lost – how machines could replace people and reshape the profession. As technology starts to take root inside real organisations, however, a more interesting story is unfolding. Rather than replacing lawyers, automation is prompting teams to rethink how they work and to redesign their processes around what humans do best.

In our last article we argued that automation doesn’t simply remove legal work: it reveals which parts of legal work really need a mind, a moral compass and a human in the room. Now I want to look at what that shift actually means in practice – how it changes the shape of legal work and the way human judgement fits alongside technology.

For many General Counsel, Chief Legal Officers and Heads of Legal, the first wave of automation has been about efficiency: contract management, document review and e-discovery. The next wave is less about efficiency and more about orchestration – about deciding what should be done by machines, what should remain firmly human and how the two can work together without friction. The question is no longer whether AI can assist, but how to redesign the team around it.

Consider the daily rhythm of an in-house legal function. Requests come from every direction: commercial, compliance, procurement, HR and risk. AI tools can already triage these inputs, classify them and in some cases propose solutions or draft responses. Yet it is still the lawyer who decides which issues demand context, negotiation or escalation. The technology can present options, but it cannot sense tone, politics or timing. It cannot read the unspoken dynamics that often determine whether advice is accepted or ignored. Human judgement is needed.

So, human review should not be an afterthought but a core design feature – the point at which accountability and experience are applied. Other professions have travelled this path before. Pilots periodically take manual control to maintain instinct. Radiologists use AI to accelerate analysis yet remain the final reviewers. Auditors validate technology-assisted conclusions rather than accepting them at face value. Across every discipline, progress depends on choreography between human and machine.

As such, there emerges a new human role that has already appeared in other sectors: the “translator”. McKinsey first used the term “analytics translator” to describe professionals who bridge the gap between technical specialists and decision-makers. It is likely that there will be lawyers who can interrogate technology outputs, test their reliability, and frame them within business strategy. They are not coders but interpreters who ensure that machine intelligence enhances rather than distorts decision-making. Some teams are already nurturing this capability – sometimes within legal, sometimes shared across legal operations or risk functions – because it is the connective tissue that keeps human insight at the centre of a technology-enabled model.

Measures of success are also evolving. Time saved is just one metric, and it is rather a blunt one. More meaningful questions for GCs may be, whether decisions are made faster, whether escalation rates fall, and whether business colleagues trust legal advice more readily. When impact is measured by the quality and speed of business decisions, the benefits of reverse automation become visible.

For in-house legal teams this evolution represents an opportunity to move closer to the business. Once routine tasks are automated, the capacity released can be directed towards proactive, strategic work – getting involved in transactions at an earlier point, helping to shape policy and guiding commercial decisions before risk crystallises. Legal functions can therefore become more integrated, commercially fluent and forward-looking.

For law firms the implications are equally significant. If machines can draft, compare and summarise faster than any junior, the traditional pyramid model begins to strain. Clients will increasingly question hourly billing for work that can be automated. Competitive advantage will come from judgement, creativity and relationship rather than volume and speed. Some firms are already adapting, embedding technology into their delivery models, investing in AI-literate teams and retraining lawyers to focus on strategy and client understanding. The same principle applies – those who view technology as augmentation rather than erosion will lead the market.

Reverse automation does not signal a diminished profession – it marks a more refined one. As machines assume the repetitive, they illuminate the work that demands empathy, creativity and ethical judgement. Success will not depend on the number of tools adopted but on how effectively teams choreograph the partnership between people and technology.

The most practical next step is to begin modestly. Identify a process that consumes time without adding commensurate value. Map it end to end. Ask where automation could help and where human judgement must remain. Pilot, review, iterate. The change is already underway – the opportunity is to shape it deliberately rather than react to it.

Further reading: McKinsey & Company, Analytics translators: The new must-have role in data-driven organisations (2018) – exploring how professionals who bridge human and machine insight create more value across industries.

Peter Workman, CEO

‍