Beethoven’s Late String Quartets, AI, and the Art of Law

Beethoven’s late string quartets now are viewed as a pinnacle of chamber music, but that wasn’t always the case. The quartets were commissioned by Prince Nikolai Galitzin in 1822 at a time when Beethoven was facing severe hearing loss. Beethoven had recently been focused on composing larger works, including his Ninth Symphony and Missa Solemnis in 1824, and he hadn’t written a quartet for a dozen years. The quartets turned out to be Beethoven’s final compositions before his death in 1827, with the last part being published posthumously.

Suffice it to say that the quartets weren’t an immediate hit. Perhaps due to Beethoven’s recent focus on large symphonic and choral works, the quartets were more complex and much longer than the chamber music of the time.

A reviewer of the first of Beethoven’s late quartets noted that both professionals and amateurs had “understood little or nothing of all” of the quartet. Beethoven’s publisher even requested that he compose a new final movement for one of the quartets (the original final movement later was published separately as “Große Fugue.”

An 1826 review of the quartets described them as “a confusion of Babel” and “indecipherable horror.” Prominent violinist Louis Spohr called the quartets “indecipherable, uncorrected horrors.” And 19th-century musicologist Alexander Oulibicheff, blaming Beethoven’s deafness, said the late works were the “negation of music itself.”

The quartets did draw some admirers. Nineteenth-century composer Robert Schumann described two of the quartets as having a “grandeur…which no words can express. They seem to me to stand…on the extreme boundary of all that has hitherto been attained by human art and imagination.” While all of the late quartets are now considered a pinnacle in the repertoire, the GroBe Fugue perhaps has received the most esteem, with Pianist Glenn Gould calling it “just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature.”

The reception of Beethoven’s late quartets shows what can happen when creativity challenges convention. Many cling to that convention, refusing to even consider that a new, creative approach might be better. Some, however, are open to change – skepticism is met with evaluation, reflection, and sometimes, even admiration.

This same mindset is all too common in the legal profession. Many view law as a science – a mechanical application of rules and procedures. As AI becomes more popular, clients and attorneys alike increasingly are viewing tasks such as contract preparation from a scientific perspective.

But businesses, musical groups, and their relationships are rarely standard, and standard agreements don’t work well for them. This article discusses why contract preparation and business planning are as much art as science and why, at least for now, AI falls short in adequately meeting most parties’ needs.

But It’s Our Standard Form!

Numerous times, I receive the same response when I negotiate contracts: “These are our standard documents one has ever mentioned or pointed that out before.” I’ve encountered some rare attorneys who listen to what I have to say and thoughtfully evaluate my comments. More frequently, however, attorneys who utter that sentence aren’t open to even consider whether there is a better way to do something.

A student composer may start by writing short songs following a prescribed format. Frequently, first compositions will follow structures used by Bach and other Baroque composers. It may be years before masterful works of art spring from the composer’s pen. Even then, the composers continue to hone their skills and refine their art, with the compositions changing as the composers mature.

With technology, many people view legal drafting as a science. Individuals may rely upon software to write their wills or create basic business documents. Many professionals, including attorneys, rely upon software to provide the most recent tax, bankruptcy, or court forms and to aid in completing those forms.

Forms and software tools may even provide attorneys with a jump start on the scientific aspects of legal drafting and enable attorneys to move to the art of legal drafting. Software may offer thesaurus and style features which allow the attorney to improve word and style choices, and some software boasts the ability to help the attorney select sections for custom contract preparation.

Technology Hasn’t Replaced Artful Legal Drafting

Yet consumers and attorneys should remember that technology hasn’t replaced the art of legal drafting, which finesses legal documents to meet the parties’ specific needs. As of now, attorneys continue to refine and develop their art through experience and hard work during years of practice.

I view law as both an art and a science. Preparing legal documents can be compared to composition or arranging music. Beethoven’s assignment was to write string quartets. A lawyer’s assignment might be to write a contract.

Beethoven had to work within a prescribed framework. By definition, a string quartet has four instruments: two violins, a viola, and a cello. Quartets frequently have four movements following an established sequence of fast and slow tempos. An operating agreement also has a framework, established by state law, of items which are in most limited liability company operating agreements.

We don’t view the composer’s string quartet as art because of the composer’s stringent compliance with convention. What makes that quartet art is how the composer weaves a message into the conventional framework and when and how the composer departs from convention.

Similarly, the artful aspect of preparing an operating agreement is how the attorney incorporates the client’s goals and culture into the conventional operating agreement framework. Legal drafting becomes elegant when it succinctly meets the client’s needs yet remains as faithful as possible to the established framework.

AI is a Tool, Not a Replacement

Legal drafting is only minimally taught in law school. Attorneys spend the first several years of their careers learning how to modify legal forms to meet their clients’ needs. Attorneys then spend decades honing their art.

As the pendulum again favors science, technology can be helpful. There are spelling and grammar checkers and software that verifies mechanics such as paragraph numbering and cross-references. There also is software that suggests improvements for writing style. I view all of those products as AI, and I have been using various ones for well over a decade.

AI isn’t something for an attorney to fear – it’s a valuable tool. However, AI remains dependent on the skill of the person giving it instructions, and it cannot know everything about the parties or their relationship like a human being will.  An attorney must review and approve any changes to be sure that technology has not swept away the art involved in designing the document to fit in the context of the relationship involved.

It’s important that clients and attorneys remember that AI is a powerful tool, but it’s not very good at giving customized legal advice.  And because it’s so dependent on the instructions and information it receives from the user, AI frequently provides inappropriate or inaccurate guidance when queries are written by non-attorneys.  

Effectively Using Both AI and Humans in Contract Drafting

I like to think of myself as an early adopter of technology and view AI as a valuable tool that can provide a jump start on the scientific aspects of legal drafting and research so I can move to the art of legal drafting and analysis.

This isn’t to say that all change is good or that being different equates to genius. Rather, it’s the willingness to consider that the conventional approach isn’t always the only or best one.

While Beethoven’s late quartets weren’t conventional, they also didn’t discard convention. They used conventional instrumentation and Western musical scales while exploring new musical frontiers. Beethoven’s innovation expanded, rather than replacing convention.

Many view AI as a replacement for conventional legal advice. They believe they can rely upon software to write their wills or create basic business documents without the benefit of an attorney. Professionals, including attorneys, rely upon AI for legal research without the need to engage in conventional verification of facts. And some attorneys have found themselves facing disciplinary boards when the information they obtained turned out to be hallucinated or misconstrued.

However, technology can’t yet replace conventional legal skills and in particular, doesn’t replace the artistic legal skills involved in finessing legal documents to meet the parties’ specific culture and goals. Attorneys shouldn’t fear AI – they should embrace it as a way of saving time so they can focus on refining and developing their art.

If AI had existed in Beethoven’s day, it might have been able to write quartets that met the rigid expectations of the audience of the time, but it wouldn’t have been able to create transformative music that withstands the test of time like Beethoven’s late quartets. Some legal contracts might not need to be transformative. However, only a human attorney can design a contract that addresses the parties’ specific needs so their business relationship can withstand the test of time.

© 2026 by Elizabeth A. Whitman

Any references to clients and their legal situations have been modified to protect client confidentiality.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this blog is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice to any person. No one should take any action regarding the information in this blog without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Neither reading this blog nor communication with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or Elizabeth A. Whitman creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will exist with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or any attorney affiliated with it unless a written contract is signed by all parties.