I disagree with this actually.
I do agree that in the wrong hands, AI is problematic - I had a letter from a litigant in person who cited case law that doesn’t exist, and when I ran her wording through an AI checker, it suggested that her letter was 95% AI generated.
However, I do use (non generative) AI tools quite regularly in my work, which are designed specifically for lawyers (and are not cheap)!
So I can put a contract in, ask it to review it for compliance, then check it - and it’s much quicker than giving it to a trainee or paralegal. If I want bespoke clauses that I don’t have time to draft myself - it does it for me, I just tweak them a bit. It can even prepare cross examination questions based on multiple documents and identify inconsistencies in witness accounts - and even though all of these things need checking and there is always work to do to get it right, it’s still significant time and expense saved compared to using junior staff. It drafts some legal documents scarily well and takes under a minute, whereas a trainee would take hours and it wouldn’t be at the same standard.
We still take trainees, but paralegals just aren’t needed in the same way since AI.
Edit to add - plus, consider how much more automated things are generally now - for example as a trainee I had to spend hours writing page numbers onto bundles by hand, and tippexing it out if I got a page number wrong - now it’s all done digitally and instantly, saving hours. Or sitting and note taking in meetings - now it can be transcribed by AI. The job has changed considerably since I started.