How Can Non-Qualified Legal Professionals Survive in the AI Era? Thinking About 'Ambidextrous Legal Practice' from 'Ambidextrous Management'

Will I be able to survive as a legal professional from here on out?

Recently, I have had more opportunities to think about such things.

I am a salaryman in my 30s, and I have been involved in corporate legal work since joining the company as a new graduate.

I do not hold a lawyer's license. I am what is known as a 'non-qualified legal professional'.

And for some reason, I attended business school for about two years while continuing to work and earned an MBA.

As a legal professional, I could have chosen to spend that time studying law more deeply.

There might have even been an option to go to law school instead of business school.

The background behind why I chose business school despite that was,

'Is digging deeper only into law and legal affairs really the optimal career strategy for me?'

a vague question I had.

And now, with generative AI evolving rapidly, this question has become a bit more urgent than before.

AI has entered the 'specialized domain' of legal affairs

The distance between corporate legal affairs and technology, centered on AI, has shrunk rapidly over the past few years.

Contract review, legal research, contract management—

Specialized LegalTech services are, of course, competing in a crowded field, but even with general-purpose generative AI like ChatGPT or Claude, you can have it read contracts, identify issues, suggest revisions, or organize legal points.

And with considerable accuracy, at that.

Of course, hallucinations have not disappeared.

Even so, when actually using it,

“Isn't the speed and comprehensiveness of their issue organization naturally better than mine?”

I have found myself thinking this more and more. At the very least, I am completely defeated in terms of raw intelligence.

Furthermore, the specialized LegalTech side is also evolving.

Recently, services known as CLM (Contract Lifecycle Management), which handle everything from case intake to review, negotiation, execution, and storage in an integrated manner, rather than just individual tasks like simple contract review or storage, are spreading.

The 'Unique Context' That AI Lacked

What is important here is not just that work becomes more convenient.

When using AI in corporate legal practice, what I feel is just as troublesome as hallucinations is the lack of 'company-specific context' and 'case-specific context'.

It is correct as a general theory.

It is not wrong as a contract either.

However,

“In our company, that point is something we cannot compromise on,” “Given the power balance with this business partner, that correction is not realistic,” “Considering the history of past negotiations, that response is slightly off-base”

Things like this happen frequently.

AI's answers are,

not wrong. But, somehow, it's not quite right.

I think the difficulty of using AI in corporate legal affairs lies here.

However, in CLM, not only contracts but also information such as cases, consultations, negotiations, and past responses are accumulated.

Of course, just because information is accumulated does not mean that AI can correctly understand the company's circumstances.

Even so, the foundation for accumulating the 'company's way of doing things,' which AI has lacked until now, in a searchable and referenceable format is gradually being put into place.

As of August 2026, I do not believe that the 'ultimate AI legal professional who fully understands the company' has been completed.

However, both technology and services are clearly moving in that direction.

So, how do non-qualified legal professionals provide value?

I would like to bring the conversation back to myself here.

Of course, the question of how legal professionals provide value in the AI era is independent of whether or not one has a lawyer's license.

However, for someone like me who does not have the easy-to-understand signal of expertise that a qualification provides,

“What will I make my strength?”

is a question that feels all the more urgent.

I am not a lawyer.

I have gained a certain amount of experience as a corporate legal professional, but if we look only at the arena of law and legal affairs, there are countless people inside and outside the company who are more knowledgeable and talented than I am.

And now, AI is entering that space as well.

Of course, AI is not omnipotent.

It can sometimes lose track of previous context during long conversations or fail to properly retrieve knowledge it should possess.

Even so, it is a bit different in nature from when a human says, 'I know I studied this a long time ago, but I can't remember it.'

At the very least, in the same sense as humans—

AI does not forget.
AI does not get tired.

And,

It is fast at reading large volumes of documents.
It is fast at organizing issues.
It is also fast at writing text.

Against such an opponent,

competing on "who knows more law" or
"who can find points of contention in a contract faster"

is a losing battle.

So, as a non-qualified legal professional who might be inferior to AI even in typical legal tasks like contract review, what weapons can I use to avoid getting fired in the future?

Why did a legal professional go to business school?

I attended Waseda Business School (commonly known as WBS).

The reason wasn't anything particularly glamorous.

Since joining the company, I have been surrounded by many excellent senior legal colleagues.

People with extensive legal knowledge.
People who are skilled at contract negotiations and coordination with internal and external stakeholders.
People who can instantly organize the issues even in complex cases.

While watching such people,

Can I really build my own strengths by continuing to run in the same direction as these people?

I would think about that.

In that case, I decided to try running in a slightly different direction.

While continuing my legal work, I would also take a peek at the world outside of it.

Learn management.
Learn finance.
Get involved with technology.

While keeping my footing in legal affairs, I would try to acquire a "way of looking at things" that is different from legal affairs.

It is doubtful how clearly I was conscious of this at the time, but from some point on, I started thinking about such things.

Around that time, my then-boss (who was not from a legal background and was also an MBA holder himself) recommended that I attend business school.

"If I go there, I might find a different kind of weapon."

I knocked on the doors of WBS with quite vague expectations.

Applying 'Ambidextrous Management' to Legal Affairs

At WBS, there is Professor Akihiro Iriyama, who specializes in management strategy. Since he appears frequently in media such as television and magazines, many of you may already know him.

One of the management theories that Professor Iriyama has widely introduced in Japan is 'Ambidextrous Management'.

At its core is the concept of
'Exploration' and 'Exploitation'
.

Roughly speaking, 'Exploitation' means digging deeper into and refining the knowledge, capabilities, and existing methods one already possesses to connect them to results more efficiently.

On the other hand, 'Exploration' means going slightly beyond the current scope of cognition and experience to search for new knowledge, possibilities, and options.

Companies inevitably tend to lean toward 'Exploitation,' where results are easier to see.

However, if you continue only with exploitation while the environment is changing drastically, your existing strengths themselves may become obsolete.

Therefore, you must simultaneously pursue 'Exploitation' to refine existing strengths and 'Exploration' to search for new possibilities.

That is the basic concept of 'Ambidextrous Management.'
(This is my shallow understanding; for details, please refer to the book supervised by Professor Iriyama.)

And I feel that 'Ambidextrous Legal Affairs,' which applies the concept of 'Ambidextrous Management' to the career and skills of a legal professional, is the survival strategy for legal professionals in the AI era.

However, 'Ambidextrous Management' is not as simple as just saying, 'Let's try our best at both exploration and exploitation' within a single organization.

Exploration and exploitation require different types of talent, evaluation methods, ways of working, and even different cultures.

The mechanisms for efficiently refining existing businesses are not necessarily suitable for testing new possibilities.

Therefore, organizational design, such as separating the organization responsible for exploration from the one responsible for exploitation while integrating both at the management level, also becomes an important issue.

In other words, it is not as simple as saying that one person should just deepen their knowledge with their right hand and explore with their left.

Furthermore, 'ambidextrous management' is originally a theory about corporate management and organizational innovation, not a theory about individual careers.

And it does not mean that 'exploration' equals studying fields other than legal affairs.

However, if we roughly apply the original concept to an individual's career, for me, 'exploration' happened to be about acquiring knowledge and 'perspectives' outside of standard legal work.

Thinking about it that way, I felt I could organize what I have been doing so far.

A Survival Strategy Called 'Ambidextrous Legal Affairs'

First, thoroughly deepen the skills that have traditionally been required in corporate legal affairs.

Study law.
Read contracts.
Research case law.
Understand the business and commercial flows you are in charge of.
Evaluate risks.
Negotiate.
Acquire knowledge of past cases and the company's own judgment criteria and practices.

Evaluating legal risks while understanding the business and thinking of realistic solutions is not a skill that was only required for the first time in the AI era.

I believe this is something that has naturally been required of legal professionals for a long time.

And in order to judge whether an AI's answer is appropriate, to gain trust from internal and external stakeholders, and to make one's own statements persuasive, this expertise as a legal professional will continue to be necessary.

'If AI knows the law, I don't need to know it'
'Since AI reviews contracts, I don't need to know the practices at all'

That is not what this is about.

On top of that, step 'outside' of legal affairs

On top of that, occasionally go out and explore outside the professional capacity of corporate legal affairs.

Management strategy
Finance
AI and technology
Data analysis
Business processes
Organizational theory

Of course, I do not mean that learning these things itself is 'exploration'.

I believe what is important is to encounter knowledge systems and new 'ways of seeing' that you rarely come across in your daily legal work, and to slightly broaden the scope of your own cognition.

In my case, one of those things was business school.

For example, as a legal professional, understanding the business itself has naturally been required all along.

However, when you look at the same business or project through different lenses—such as business strategy, finance, or organizational theory—the way you frame your questions changes slightly.

Instead of just asking, 'What are the legal risks in this contract?'

Questions like, 'Where is this business trying to create a competitive advantage in the first place?'
'Will this investment generate returns commensurate with the risks taken?'
'Can this strategy really be executed with the current organization?'

also emerge.

That in itself might not be the job of the legal department by nature.

However, when you look at legal work again after having acquired those different lenses, I feel that the way the same project appears changes a little.

Individual 'ambidexterity' is probably not about doing things in parallel either.

Furthermore, the idea that for the success of 'ambidextrous management,' it is effective to provide suitable environments for exploration and exploitation rather than forcing them to coexist within the same mechanism, is also suggestive when applied to an individual's career.

It is not realistic for one person to constantly balance exploration and exploitation in their daily work.

In daily practice, you face projects as a legal professional and deepen your expertise.

On the other hand, outside of work or in different communities, you encounter knowledge and ways of thinking that you do not usually come into contact with.

For me, the life of working as a legal professional during the day and attending business school at night and on weekends ended up serving as that division of roles.

And then, you bring back what you gained in the space of exploration to your work.

If we are to think about 'ambidexterity' at the individual level, rather than moving both hands at the same time, it might be important to consciously have time and places suitable for exploration and exploitation, and to go back and forth between them.

Exploration alone is likely not enough.

Of course, a legal professional has studied finance.

They have become able to use AI.

They have earned an MBA.

If that is all, they will simply end up as 'someone who knows more'.

What is important is to bring what you have gained through exploration back to legal practice.

Connect the knowledge gained through exploration with the expertise of corporate legal practice that has been deepened.

The essence of 'ambidextrous legal practice' likely lies here.

Legal x Management Strategy
Legal x Finance
Legal x AI
Legal x Data Analysis
Legal x Organizational/Operational Design

Corporate legal practice is not a job aimed at researching the law itself.

I believe it is a job that uses legal expertise to improve the quality of a company's decision-making.

Therefore, in the end,

'This is the legal position'

is not enough.

'So, what will this company do?'

is where you need to step in.

The more AI can handle vast amounts of legal knowledge and refer to past contracts and internal knowledge, the more, at the very least,

'Knowing the law'
'Being able to review contracts'

It will become increasingly difficult to differentiate oneself and provide value based solely on that ability.

If that is the case, one area where humans can create a comparative advantage is not in the law itself, but in...

'How should this matter be evaluated, taking into account management objectives?'
'How should we think about risks and expected returns?'
'How can we explain this to the business division to get them to take action?'
'How should this rule be implemented based on the realities of operations?'
'How can we incorporate AI and LegalTech into business processes to achieve the best results?'

areas such as connecting legal expertise with other lenses like management, finance, organization, and technology, and distilling it into 'what we should do as a company'—that is likely where the focus should be.

Of course, it is possible that AI will handle even those areas at a high level in the future.

At the very least, there is a reality where AI already provides high-level support for the examination and execution of questions and issues raised by humans.

Even so, at least for now, it seems more rational to try to build one's strengths on this side rather than making the processing of routine legal knowledge the sole axis of competition.

There is no need to beat AI.

Thinking about it that way, the very idea of 'beating AI' feels a bit off.

There is no point in competing with AI on the speed of reading contracts or listing legal issues.

Rather, you should use AI to accelerate your own 'deepening' and 'exploration'.

Have it critique your contract reviews.

Have it search for points you might have overlooked.

Get hints on how to link management theory with the matter at hand.

Have it help with data analysis.

Think through new business processes together with it.

It cannot be denied that AI is highly likely to take away traditional 'legal work,' but at the same time, it is...

a very powerful tool for becoming ambidextrous

I also think that is the case.

However, after entering WBS, I realized something.

Now, up to this point,

“There is no point in fighting on the same playing field as people who know more about the law than I do.”
“Therefore, I will learn management and explore knowledge.”
“This is the differentiation strategy for non-qualified legal professionals.”

I have written a rather neat story like that.

However, after entering WBS, one problem arose.

At least as far as I know,

“I don't have a lawyer's license, but I've been working in corporate legal affairs and came to WBS.”

There were no other classmates who said that.

Up to this point, it was according to plan.

On the other hand,

There were lawyers.

And not just one.

As far as I can remember, there were four.

In other words, I,

“I can't win with just law. So I'll learn management too.”

I came to WBS thinking that,

but there,

There were already people who had intensely deepened their legal knowledge and were similarly coming to explore management.

They were just there.

That is what I realized then.

I see.

The world is not that easy.

Of course, that does not mean there was no point in exploring.

Rather, what I realized there was that

the fact of having 'explored' itself would not remain a differentiating factor forever.

That was the point.

It is not over once you step into a new place.

You must connect what you have gained there to your own expertise, deepen it further, and explore outside your own cognitive boundaries again.

Being ambidextrous may not be a state that is completed once you acquire a single qualification or experience, but rather a process that you must keep spinning.

My own 'ambidexterity' has only just begun.

In the end, I do not think there is any simple survival strategy for legal professionals in the AI era.

Having a lawyer's license does not guarantee safety.

Having an MBA does not guarantee differentiation.

Being able to use AI does not guarantee victory.

Even so, I have my own hypothesis.

Dig deep into your expertise as a legal professional.

Occasionally, step out into the world beyond.

Pick up different 'perspectives' there.

Bring them back to your legal work.

And then, dig deep again.

Deepen. Explore. And connect.

Furthermore, do not just do this once; repeat the cycle many times.

Perhaps that kind of 'ambidexterity' is what is needed for legal professionals in the AI era.

However—

Lawyers who have deepened their legal knowledge far more than I have are also thinking the same things and exploring in the same way.

The road to realizing 'ambidextrous legal affairs' for a non-qualified legal professional seems to be much longer than I had imagined.