It usually starts the same way.
A stack of documents on the desk - sometimes twenty, sometimes fifty, sometimes more. Contracts, court papers, notes, correspondence. Each one containing pieces of a story that needs to be understood, structured, and turned into something usable.
For Petter Hermansen, an associate at Brækhus , this has long been the reality of working with inheritance law and financial family law. Cases often involve people in difficult situations - conflict, loss, uncertainty - and behind every case sits a large body of information that must be carefully unpacked.
But the real challenge was never just the legal complexity.
It was everything that came before it.
“You’re handling loads of information every single day,” he explains, “and you need some sort of system to distil it and organise it.”
So the work began there. Reading. Highlighting. Summarising. Trying to create an overview before any real legal thinking could begin. Hours could pass - sometimes days - just getting to the point where meaningful analysis could start.
From the outside, legal work is often seen as strategic and analytical. Inside, much of it is something else entirely: structuring information, rewriting it, making sense of it. Necessary work, but not the work clients ultimately value most.
That changed the moment AI entered the workflow.
When tools like Saga were first introduced, the initial use cases were simple. Upload documents. Ask for a summary. See what happens.
But the impact was immediate.
Instead of working through documents one by one, Petter could suddenly see a structured overview in minutes. Key points surfaced instantly. More importantly, every insight came with references - links back to the exact place in the original material.
“If you have 20 or 30 documents,” he says, “you can hand that over and get a summary with references, so you can quickly check that everything is correct.”
That last part matters. In a profession built on precision and accountability, trust cannot be outsourced. And Petter is clear about that.
“You can never trust it 100%.” The role of the lawyer hasn’t changed. Every output still needs to be verified, every conclusion checked. But the process of getting there - of moving from raw information to structured understanding - has become dramatically faster.
One moment stands out. While preparing for a client meeting, Petter needed to revisit several legal questions. Normally, that would mean returning to books and articles, reading through each source, taking notes, and piecing together an overview.
This time, he uploaded everything and asked for a focused summary.
What came back wasn’t just faster - it was different. Instead of reading one source after another, he saw the answers organised by the questions he needed to resolve. Insights drawn from multiple sources. Relevant excerpts placed side by side. A complete, structured overview ready to use.
“I got exactly what I needed,” he says. “Organised by the questions I had to answer.”
The time saved was obvious. But something else emerged as well.
Space.
Less time spent summarising meant more time spent thinking. Less time organising meant more time analysing. The work shifted - away from preparation, and towards judgement.
“You spend less time on low-value work,” he explains, “and more time on what clients actually need.”
And, perhaps unexpectedly, it also made the work more engaging.
“It’s given me more time to do the more enjoyable parts of the job.”
That sense of exploration carries through his day-to-day work. The technology isn’t static - it invites experimentation. New use cases appear constantly. New ways of working emerge almost naturally.
“It’s always interesting to find new ways to use it,” he says. “That happens all the time.”
What began as an individual productivity tool has also started to reshape how teams work together.
At Braekhus, documents are no longer just files tied to a single case. They are becoming shared knowledge bases. Teams build projects where legal materials, case documents, and research are collected and made accessible in one place. Instead of starting from scratch, lawyers begin with context - both factual and legal - already structured.
Standardised prompts are emerging for recurring tasks. Processes that once required manual effort - such as summarising estate documents for internal collaboration - are now handled almost instantly. What used to take time becomes something you move through with ease.
“We get through the slower parts much faster,” Petter says, “and can move more quickly to the actual legal analysis.”
But the shift is not just about tools. It is about behaviour.
Because in a busy legal environment, learning something new rarely happens on its own. It needs to be made visible. Practical. Immediate.
That is why much of the progress has been driven by hands-on experience - workshops, live demonstrations, short sessions where people can test things themselves.
“The most helpful part is actually trying it out,” he says. “Seeing examples is one thing, but you need to use it yourself to understand how it fits into your work.”
Over time, this has led to something broader: a culture where AI is not a separate initiative, but an ongoing conversation. A shared effort to continuously refine how work is done.
For younger lawyers, the implications are even greater.
The tasks that once defined the early years of a legal career - summarising, organising, processing information - are changing. Many of them can now be automated. Which means the path into the profession is shifting as well.
“If AI can handle the low-value tasks,” Petter explains, “you can move more quickly to where real learning happens.”
But it also raises expectations.
“We’re at the starting point now,” he says. “AI is being implemented everywhere - and that’s only going to continue.”
A few years from now, not having experience with these tools may not just be a gap - it may be a disadvantage.
And so the shift becomes clear. This is about redefining how they work. At its core, the transformation is simple: less time spent processing information, more time spent understanding it. Less time preparing, more time advising. Less friction between complexity and clarity.
In the end, Petter puts it in a way that feels both direct and inevitable: AI won’t replace lawyers.
But lawyers who use AI will replace those who don’t.
And yet, for all the change, the essence of the work remains the same.
The reason he chose the profession in the first place still holds: working with people, helping them through difficult situations, making sense of complexity when it matters most.
AI hasn’t changed that. It has simply made more room for it.
