Information moves fast. Judgment doesn’t.
The starting point for a tax lawyer’s work has changed. For a long time, much of this work began with the search for information — finding the relevant law, mapping out case law and legal doctrine, and comparing interpretations. Today, clients often come to the meeting having already researched the topic using an artificial intelligence tool. What they expect from their lawyer has changed. And it is this change that is worth reflecting on.
 The most obvious reading of this scenario is that tax lawyering will become simpler and, perhaps, unnecessary. If information is more accessible, why would it still be necessary to rely on experienced professionals?
 The answer is straightforward: in tax law, information is not the same as an answer. And an answer is not the same as professional judgment.
Technology has brought clear benefits. It saves hours previously spent on background research, organizing information, and comparing and summarizing texts and regulations. But there is a point where it stops. And it is precisely at that point that the most difficult work begins: how to advise a client who does not want just a quick diagnosis of the problem, but guidance on what to do — in an environment marked by constant legislative changes that are not always clear, by divergent interpretations of the same issue (sometimes adopted by the same court or authority), and by shifts driven by the political, economic, and social context, both locally and internationally.
Tax issues are rarely just matters of research. The client doesn’t always want to know if there’s a legal argument for a particular course of action. They want to understand whether that course of action makes sense at that moment, within that structure, in that sector, and in that commercial context. They want to know if it’s worth moving forward, or if what looks like a technical alternative today could turn into a tax assessment tomorrow, years of litigation, or a headline no one wants to read.
This kind of guidance isn’t readily available anywhere. It is built through analysis of the specific case — looking at what has already been done, what can still be done, and what may not be evident at first glance.
In some tax systems, there is a significant complicating factor: the outcome in similar situations can vary depending on the strategy adopted by the taxpayer. In other words, similar cases may have different outcomes depending on the path chosen. That path may include paying the tax to avoid assessments, even where the amount due is uncertain; waiting for the statute of limitations to expire as a form of tacit validation by the tax authorities; contesting the matter through administrative or judicial channels; pursuing the dispute at trial or on appeal; adopting a more defensive or more assertive posture; participating in installment programs or settlements with the tax authorities; or pursuing other ADR mechanisms, among others.
This shows just how untenable it is to think that tax lawyering can be fully standardized. What is at stake, often, is not merely the legal argument itself, but the way it will be used, defended, and sustained over time. And it is precisely in this realm — where the rule exists, but the correct answer depends on the context — that the value of professional judgment becomes most evident. Over time, tax lawyers learn to recognize patterns, to distinguish between a technically clever argument and a position that is truly tenable, and, above all, to understand that not everything that is possible on paper is advisable in practice. This is an insight built slowly, from years of watching how these issues evolve, and it is precisely this kind of understanding that is difficult to extract from a database.
When there is so much talk about artificial intelligence in the legal world, the most interesting question may not be whether AI can help. It certainly can. The real question is different: what remains profoundly human in tax lawyering?
The answer seems to lie in the ability to exercise discernment in the face of complexity. The best tax lawyers are not merely those who identify a legal argument. They are the ones who can weigh risks, foresee consequences, perceive nuances, anticipate how authorities and courts are likely to react, and transform all of this into clear and responsible guidance.
Ultimately, clients aren’t just looking for information. They’re looking for the confidence to choose a path. They’re looking for someone to help them understand where the risks lie, which paths are more solid, and how to move forward with greater clarity. That confidence doesn’t come from the speed of the response. It comes from the quality of the professional judgment behind it.
When everyone has access to information, and preliminary answers are generated in seconds, what matters most is who knows how to ask the right questions and identify what is truly at stake. And when the landscape is one of uncertainty — with significant financial, reputational, and operational impacts — it remains essential to rely on professionals capable of exercising sound judgment.
Perhaps tax lawyering has never really been about finding information. It has always been about what to do with it. Technology has changed the starting point; it has not changed the destination. And it is at the destination that professional judgment continues to make the difference.
About the Author:
Gabriela Mariano Schunck, Tax Counsel, Knowledge Management, Latin America at Trench Rossi Watanabe (in strategic cooperation with Baker McKenzie)
Gabriela Mariano Schunck is a tax lawyer with over 20 years of experience advising Brazilian and multinational companies on complex tax matters. She is Counsel in the Tax Practice at Trench Rossi Watanabe, leading the Tax Knowledge Management area in Brazil and across key Latin American jurisdictions under the firm’s strategic cooperation with Baker McKenzie. Her expertise includes direct and indirect taxation, tax compliance, planning, M&A transactions, and corporate reorganizations. Gabriela has also worked at Big Four firms and as a partner at a Brazilian law firm, advising on wealth planning and corporate tax matters. She holds a Law degree and a postgraduate degree in Tax Law.
