【美国Biglaw热议】从律所跳槽去法律AI公司,是好的选择吗?

【美国Biglaw热议】没活干、工作小时不足的低年级律师，还能在律师继续生存吗？

【美国Biglaw热议】律所会直接告诉你：你当不上合伙人吗？

美国Biglaw律师是怎么讨论AI工作体验的？

原帖

楼主 | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：未显示

EN: Has anyone made the jump (or declined to jump) to legal AI? I'm talking Harvey, Legora, Clio as a legal engineer.

中：有没有人已经跳去了 legal AI，或者拒绝过这样的机会？我说的是 Harvey、Legora、Clio 这类公司里的 legal engineer 岗位。

EN: I'm a 1st year at an Am 10 in a big market. I like my practice group and will be hitting around 2300 hours this year. As I'm sure most agree, it's not the sheer amount of hours that exhausts me, it's the uncertainty of everyday and the lack of interaction with other humans. Making the jump to legal AI seems more interesting to me even though it'll likely have the uncertainty all start ups come with. I imagine it'll be the same number of hours.

中：我是一名一年级律师，在一个大市场的 Am 10 律所。我喜欢自己的业务组，今年工时大概会到 2300 小时。很多人应该会同意，真正让我累的不是小时数本身，而是每天的不确定性，以及几乎没有和真人互动。跳去 legal AI 对我来说似乎更有意思，虽然它大概率也会有所有创业公司都有的不确定性。我想工时可能也差不多。

EN: I received an offer last week. Shockingly, overall comp is more (but with less growth than if I stayed at my firm).

中：我上周拿到了一个 offer。令人意外的是，总包更高（但成长空间不如继续留在律所）。

EN: Sometimes I think it's too soon for me to make the jump to a non-lawyering role (a "legal engineer" is more of an integration consultant). But I also think now's the time to get into legal tech and I'd regret not taking this opportunity. The law is also my second career, so I'm no stranger to a pivot.

中：有时候我觉得，现在跳去一个非律师岗位还太早了。“Legal engineer”更像是 integration consultant。但我又觉得现在正是进入 legal tech 的时机，如果不抓住这个机会，以后可能会后悔。而且法律本来就是我的第二职业，我并不陌生于职业转向。

评论区

Low_Trust2412 | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：46

EN: I dont see how as a first year you will be able to continue to add value as a legal engineer. I think once the "easy" stuff is worked out they will lay you off. I would stay longer and get more expertise before leaving.

中：我看不出来，作为一年级律师，你怎么能持续以 legal engineer 的身份提供价值。我觉得一旦那些“容易”的东西被做完，他们就会裁掉你。我会多待几年，先积累更多专业能力再走。

回复 The_ivy_fund | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：8

EN: So risk averse. They would gain skills and insight that presumably make them harder to replace than just some more experienced lawyer.

中：这也太风险厌恶了吧。去那里也会获得技能和洞察，理论上会让他们比一个单纯更有经验的律师更难被替代。

回复 Optimal-Reality7350 | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：11

EN: I've seen people who handled LLM training single handedly for an AI start up laid off once the product is "done" and in between funding phases.

中：我见过有人在一家 AI 创业公司单枪匹马负责 LLM training，结果产品一“做完”、公司又处在融资间隙，就被裁了。

Barry-Zuckerkorn-Esq | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：31

EN: I remain very, very skeptical about the medium term viability (like, making it to 2028) of companies like Harvey. These companies don't own their own models, and instead develop industry-specific wrappers and harnesses to act as a middleman between the customer and the actual frontier model. That middleman position is untenable.

中：我对 Harvey 这类公司的中期生存能力仍然非常、非常怀疑，比如能不能撑到 2028 年。这些公司并不拥有自己的模型，而是在客户和真正的前沿模型之间，开发行业特定的包装层和工具层，充当中间人。这个中间人的位置是站不住的。

EN: I think, like Cursor, they will get squeezed by the actual frontier model owners (Anthropic, OpenAI, maybe Google and possibly other big tech companies that want to actually get their own models competitive on the frontier) as soon as they validate the business case. Cursor was a middleman, and then they lost market share while still selling access to frontier models at a loss/subsidizing their own customers, when Anthropic launched Claude Code and OpenAI launched Codex. Now they're making a play to get out of that by training their own models, and basically had to sell itself to xAI (a company that couldn't compete at building its own frontier models and is now leasing its own hardware out to its competitors), just to get access to the resources necessary to even try pivoting out of middleman status. I'm skeptical they'll get there, but I get that they're desperate.

中：我觉得它们会像 Cursor 一样，一旦验证了商业模式，就会被真正拥有前沿模型的公司挤压，比如 Anthropic、OpenAI，也可能是 Google，或者其他想把自家模型做到前沿水平的大科技公司。Cursor 本质上也是中间人。后来 Anthropic 推出 Claude Code、OpenAI 推出 Codex，它在还亏本卖前沿模型访问权限、补贴自己客户的同时，开始丢市场份额。现在它想通过训练自己的模型摆脱这个位置，基本上还不得不卖给 xAI，只是为了拿到足够资源去尝试摆脱中间人身份。我怀疑它能不能做到，但我理解它为什么急。

EN: So that pressure is starting now. Anthropic launched Claude for Legal last month.

中：所以这种压力现在已经开始了。Anthropic 上个月推出了 Claude for Legal。

EN: So if there's going to be some kind of value in helping connect lawyers with the core AI technology, without either being a lawyer or owning the core technology, that's going to require a bunch of industry-specific knowledge (for developing a secret sauce that can't easily be replicated either directly by the law firms or the frontier model owners) or relationships (for sales/marketing/training). Does leaving a first- or second-year associate role for a job with Harvey or other middleman actually position you for that future?

中：所以，如果一个人既不是继续做律师，也不拥有核心技术，却想通过“帮助律师连接核心 AI 技术”来创造价值，那就需要大量行业特定知识，形成律所或前沿模型公司都难以复制的秘密配方；或者需要关系网络，用于销售、市场和培训。一个一年级或二年级 associate 离开律所，去 Harvey 或其他中间人公司，真的能让你站到那个未来的位置上吗？

PericulumSapientiae | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：13

EN: I think you're asking the wrong population. People who land in Biglaw tend to be risk-averse, so big moves that take one outside of the established track are unlikely to be palatable.

中：我觉得你问错人群了。能进 Biglaw 的人通常都比较风险厌恶，所以这种把人带离既定轨道的大动作，对他们来说很难接受。

EN: I am less risk-averse than some, but taking the leap on Legal AI seems to me a little like drinking the kool-aid. While I don't doubt that AI is embedding itself within legal practice for the foreseeable future, the current hype is part of this mass hysteria cycle where a bunch of followers are terrified about being left behind. Eventually, the hype will settle into something more sustainable, billions of dollars in value will evaporate, and you're going to have to just hope you chose wisely on where to go.

中：我比有些人没那么保守，但跳去 Legal AI 在我看来还是有点像喝了 Kool-Aid。我不怀疑 AI 会在可预见的未来嵌入法律实务，但现在这波热潮也是一种群体性亢奋，很多跟随者只是害怕被落下。最终，热度会回落到更可持续的状态，数十亿美元价值会蒸发，而你只能希望自己当初选对了地方。

ImpossibleCreme | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：11

EN: Legal engineer is the worst job on the planet and is a pretty big stain on your resume.

中：Legal engineer 是地球上最糟糕的工作，而且会在简历上留下很大的污点。

回复 IWRITE4LIFE | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：21

EN: It's a sales job with no transferable legal skills, you're essentially leaving the practice of law.

中：那是个销售工作，没有可迁移的法律技能。你本质上是在离开法律执业。

回复 bob_loblaws_law-blog | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：7

EN: Essentially? You are absolutely, unequivocally leaving the practice of law.

中：“本质上”？你是绝对、毫无疑问地离开法律执业。

faberoro09876 | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：5

EN: I've done the Biglaw thing (6th year when i left) and the startup thing (not legal tech) and this is what I can share.

中：我做过 Biglaw，也做过创业公司，不过不是 legal tech。我离开 Biglaw 时是六年级。我的经验是这样。

EN: I didn't know how good I was trained until I left Biglaw. I think my experience there gave me more options afterwards. Biglaw also got more interesting once you make it past the first 2 years.

中：直到离开 Biglaw，我才意识到自己在那里受过多好的训练。我觉得那段经历后来给了我更多选择。而且 Biglaw 过了前两年之后，也会变得更有意思。

EN: If you want a career in law or law adjacent fields, I think staying a few more years will give you greater options than if you left now. For one, it'll be quite difficult for you to go back to Biglaw.

中：如果你想继续在法律或法律相邻领域发展，我觉得多待几年会比现在离开给你更多选择。首先，你现在走的话，以后再回 Biglaw 会相当难。

Wajubop12 | 2026-06-28 | 点赞数：1

EN: Go for it breh.

中：冲吧兄弟。