The Missing Middle: What Engineering Can Teach Us About the Future of Legal Talent

I come from a family with strong engineering roots. My grandfathers, uncles and brothers have all been engineers. I initially started down that path myself, completing a BSc in Chemistry before changing tack and pursuing an LLB.

Although my career ultimately took me into law and legal recruitment, I have always maintained an interest in the engineering profession.

Over the years, one trend has stood out to me.

Many businesses continue to attract talented engineering graduates and many experienced engineers remain active well into their later careers. Yet what often appears to be missing is the layer in between.

The engineers with 10 to 20 years of experience who would traditionally mentor, supervise and develop the next generation.

For a variety of reasons, including emigration and changing career paths, many of those individuals are no longer there. The result is that junior engineers are frequently required to take on greater responsibility earlier in their careers, often without the level of guidance previous generations received.

Over time, that inevitably affects quality, knowledge transfer and the development of future leaders.

It has made me wonder whether the legal profession may be heading towards a similar challenge.

The apprenticeship problem

Historically, junior lawyers developed through repetition.

They reviewed contracts, conducted research, drafted agreements and sat through countless meetings and negotiations. Much of this work was repetitive, but it was also how lawyers learned to think, analyse risk and develop judgement.

The legal profession has always relied on a form of apprenticeship. Experienced practitioners pass knowledge to those coming through behind them. Over time, those juniors develop into trusted advisors, leaders and mentors themselves.

It is not always the most efficient process. But it is often where judgement is formed.

What happens when AI takes over the training ground?

Today, AI can perform many of those junior-level tasks in a fraction of the time.

The efficiency gains are undeniable.

Research can be accelerated. Drafting can be completed more quickly. Information is easier to access than ever before.

I am not suggesting that firms should ignore these tools. In fact, lawyers who embrace AI effectively will almost certainly outperform those who do not.

My concern lies elsewhere.

If too much of the apprenticeship disappears, what happens to the development process?

How do future lawyers learn to identify risks others have missed?

How do they develop the ability to understand the commercial realities behind a legal position?

How do they learn the difference between something that is technically correct and something that is practically flawed?

These are not skills that emerge from information alone. They are developed through exposure, experience and judgement.

Information is not judgement

The value of an experienced lawyer has never been their ability to find information. Information has always been available in one form or another.

The real value lies in the ability to apply judgement. It is the ability to understand context, anticipate unintended consequences, navigate complexity and recognise risks before they become problems.

These capabilities are built over years of experience, client interactions, negotiations and difficult decisions. They are also the qualities that businesses rely on when the stakes are highest.

Could law face its own missing middle?

The engineering profession offers a useful warning.

When there is a shortage of experienced practitioners capable of mentoring those coming through behind them, the impact is felt far beyond recruitment.

It affects capability, succession, and the development of future leaders. The legal profession may not be there yet, but it is worth asking whether the same dynamics could emerge over time.

If firms focus exclusively on efficiency gains without investing in the development of judgement, they may find themselves with plenty of qualified professionals but too few experienced practitioners capable of leading, mentoring and advising at the highest level.

That is the gap I believe we should be paying attention to.

Looking beyond today's hiring needs

For businesses, the challenge is not simply finding qualified professionals. It is identifying future leaders.

People who can apply judgement, develop others and navigate increasingly complex environments.

As organisations think about succession, leadership hiring and long-term talent strategy, that distinction may become more important than ever.

The question is not whether AI will change professional services. It already has. The question is whether we are doing enough to ensure the next generation develops the experience and judgement that technology alone cannot provide.