Here is a big thought to consider: could the AI transformation of law transform all business, and by doing so transform civilization itself? Imagine a transformative ripple effect that could create billionaires, bankrupt some of the biggest companies on the planet, and topple governments.
Law has been defined by scarcity
For most of history, access to law has been defined by scarcity. Legal knowledge existed, often in great depth and sophistication, but it was not readily available to those who needed it at the moment decisions were made. Even experienced business leaders, operating at the highest levels, encountered law not as a continuous presence, but as an episodic intervention—something consulted after a decision had begun to take shape, or after a problem had already emerged.
This was not a failure of the system. It was a function of its structure.
Law has traditionally required specialized training to interpret, institutional frameworks to apply, and professional intermediaries to access. The result has been a model in which legal insight is delivered through lawyers, usually at significant cost, and typically with some delay. A question arises, counsel is engaged, research is conducted, and an answer is eventually provided. The process is deliberate and often effective, but it is neither instantaneous nor continuous.
Business decisions are frequently made first, with legal considerations layered on afterward. Risk is assessed in retrospect rather than in real time. Opportunities are pursued based on commercial judgment, with legal feasibility evaluated as a secondary step.
This pattern reflects a deeper economic reality. Legal knowledge has been expensive to produce and difficult to distribute. Each analysis required time, expertise, and often bespoke effort. As a result, access was rationed by businesses. Routine matters might be handled internally or deferred, while more significant issues justified the cost of external counsel. The boundary between what was “worth asking” and what was not became an implicit constraint on how law was used.
Civilization is based on rules
The consequences of this model extend beyond business. Civilization itself rests on rules-based systems—agreements about property, exchanges, obligations, and how authority is applied, allows individuals and institutions to coordinate behavior at scale. These systems, which are often invisible and frequently implicit, are only as effective as their usability. Rules that cannot be accessed, understood, or applied in a timely way do not meaningfully shape conduct. They exist in theory, but not in practice.
For most of history, law has served as the primary mechanism through which these rules are expressed and enforced, yet access to that mechanism has been uneven. Large institutions, with the resources to retain extensive legal support, have been able to navigate and shape the system more effectively. Smaller businesses and individuals, even when sophisticated, have been required to operate with more limited access. The Legal Services Corporation has reported that 92% of the civil legal problems of low-income Americans receive inadequate or no legal help, and the World Justice Project has shown in its global legal-needs work that the distance between formal rights and practical access remains large in many countries.
The law has been universal in principle but selective in practice
Richard Susskind and others have argued for years that technology would eventually change not merely how lawyers practice, but how legal capability itself is delivered, widening access by lowering the cost and friction of obtaining usable guidance. Law as a service has been evolving with new technology for decades, but we have passed over a tipping point: access to legal understanding is beginning to move from scarcity toward availability.
The “Wow” moment happening now
What distinguishes the current moment is not simply the digitization of legal materials or the automation of discrete tasks: that is a thirty-year story. It is the ability to generate legal insight—contextual, responsive, and increasingly reliable—at the moment a question arises. “Good enough” answers to legal questions are available in real time for nearly everyone, not just lawyers, at essentially no cost.
This change alters not just the fundamental economics of law, but when the cost of access declines, behavior changes. Questions that were once deferred are now asked immediately. Issues that were once escalated to outsiders are now explored directly. Legal considerations move from the periphery of decision-making to its center, not because they have become more important, but because they have become more accessible.
The shift from episodic to continuous access is particularly significant. Law is no longer something that enters the process at defined intervals. It becomes part of the process itself. A business person evaluating a contract can test multiple scenarios in real time. A founder considering a regulatory issue can explore implications before committing to a course of action. A manager can assess risk at the point of decision, rather than after the fact. Business is transformed.
This transformation does not eliminate the need for lawyers, but it changes when and how they are engaged. As routine access becomes easier, the role of the lawyer shifts toward areas where judgment, experience, and accountability matter most. Recent ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI, reflects that logic: these systems may change how work is performed, but they do not remove the lawyer’s responsibility for competence, supervision, confidentiality, or communication with the client.
Instant, continuous and effectively free
The implications extend beyond business or the structure of the legal profession. When legal knowledge becomes instant, continuous, and effectively free at the margin, it begins to resemble infrastructure rather than a service. Like electricity or connectivity, it is present when needed, integrated into systems, and rarely considered in isolation. The boundary between legal and non-legal decision-making begins to dissolve, which is where transformed business impacts society as a whole.
Civilization is based on rules, which become laws. At its foundation, what we describe as civilization is not simply culture, technology, or economic development, but the structured coordination of human behavior through shared systems of rules that define rights, obligations, and authority. These rules govern how individuals exchange value, how institutions exercise power, and how societies maintain order across scale and time. Sociologist Max Weber captured this structure in his description of modern society as organized through systems of rational, rule-based authority, in which legitimacy flows not from individuals but from adherence to established rules and procedures. Similarly, Norbert Elias, described civilization as the long-term development of norms, behavioral rules, and institutional constraints that regulate conduct. From an economic perspective, Douglass North distilled this insight even further, defining civilization as “the rules of the game” that structure human interaction, making coordination, exchange, and cooperation possible at scale. Taken together, these perspectives point to a consistent conclusion: civilization is not merely supported by rules—it is constituted by them. Laws represent the formalization of these rules, but their effectiveness depends on whether they can be understood, interpreted, and applied by those who live within them.
This is how the world changes
If civilization is built on rules, and law is the system through which those rules are made usable, then a transformation in access to law becomes a transformation in civilization itself. When individuals and institutions can understand and apply rules in real time, expectations of consistency, fairness, and accountability begin to shift. The distance between the existence of a rule and its practical application narrows.
This does not guarantee more equitable outcomes. Access is not the same as enforcement, and technology can reinforce existing power structures as well as challenge them. What is clear, however, is that the underlying condition has changed. Law is moving from scarcity to ubiquitous access.
That shift does not simply improve the efficiency of legal services. It alters the role of law in human systems. With this expanded access to law, business changes first, because it is closest to the mechanisms of decision-making, but the implications extend outward. As access expands, the structure of the rules-based systems we describe as civilization begins to change with it. Billionaires will be created; bankruptcies will ensue; civilization itself may never be the same.
