One thing I learned over the years about litigating: front end loading and early case assessment were critical for success and strategy. The problem was that took time and clients often balked at paying for it. So when I saw that the recent AI Guide for Litigators from the Thomson Reuters Institute and ILTA focused on just this kind of assessment among other phases, I was intrigued.

Here is my discussion for Above the Law of the Guide and how AI can make early case assessment faster and cheaper.

I was a litigator for many years, much of it spent handling mass torts with high stakes. I know how litigation works. I have seen lawyers turn what ought to be straightforward dispute into a bloody war that exponentially increases time and expense. And that was before AI.

I thought about this as I was reading Richard Tromans’ excellent recent piece in Artificial Lawyer, Legal AI vs The Adversarial Incentive. His idea: the more adversarial a legal matter, the more AI’s efficiency gains get eaten up by more work.

I think he’s right, especially in litigation, where the adversity is greatest. And it explains why law firms haven’t fundamentally changed how they work despite AI, something studies by Deloitte and Harbor Global seem to confirm.

The Adversarial Incentive

You would think that AI would reduce the time for doing things like document review and legal research. That it would narrow the focus of discovery. That it would help frame the arguments in a concise way, so you know what’s worth fighting over. In fact, I recently discussed how front-end loading a case, which can now be done much more efficiently, can do all that. And that’s true for some lawyers. 

Continue Reading Technology and Litigation: A Game of Tit for Tat on Steroids

There’s two ways of looking at a glass: it’s either half full or half empty. I thought about this when I read Everlaw’s 2026 Legal AI Adoption and Impact Report. Everlaw mostly says the AI legal glass is half full but the curmudgeon in me can’t resist a half empty view as well. Or telling a joke about three frogs on a log.

Here’s my post for Above the Law.

Having written recenlty on the difficulty of determining the ROI on the use of AI for substative legal work, I was interested in the recent partnership announcement by Legora and Laurel that includes a commitment to eventually give law firms that ability. There’s is lots of value in knowing that ROI but , once firms know it, the issue is what they do with it and what clients will expect. Here is my discussion of all this for Above the Law.

I keep hearing all this stuff about how AI is creating a generation of lawyers who can’t think, write, or research. That they have a sense of entitlement. 

I have to admit I’m liitle suspicious since every generation was labled worse than the one before it. Yet we all somehow managed to survive. 

And I was encouraged by the approach of a panel of legal educators who talked at RelFest about how they are using AI to improve student learning instead of blaming the students. 

Here’s my post about that panel for Above the Law.

There is no doubt that hallucinations are real and lawyers need to check their cites. But I think sometimes we overreact to the hype and under react to some realities. So it was good to hear from five judges recently at RelFest who put some perspective into the mix. Coincidentialiy, it came at the same time I heard about the California proposal to make every lawyer disclose they have used any AI with respect to any pleading. And they have to themselves verifiy each citation. No paralegals. No tech tool designed to do just that. That may mean it takes more time to use AI than not. Here’s my post on the panel for Above the Law.

I was at a managing partners conferance recently and every managing partner had the same complaint: they can’t find lawyers, and they can’t keep the ones they have. 

t made me think of a recent 8am study that showed too many legal prefesionals are made miserable by admin work demands. It occured to me that a lot of small firms are overlooking something that might help their retention probems: automating the admin work that’s eating their people alive.

That’s not necessaliry a retention strategy but a workflow one. Here are my thoughts for Above the Law.

I’ll be honest. I didn’t know what to expect when I went to the Carlos Santana in concert last week. \I mean, he’s pushing 80. Would he still play those glorious guitar riffs? Or would he mail it in? Well. Carlos don’t mail it in. I thought about this when my friend Carolyn Elefant mentioned on Ruby Powers podcast that she’s seeing more and more lawyers 60 and older throw up their hands at AI and say, Ill just retire. Others are just pretending AI isnt happening. 

But fear is a lousy career counselor and not a good way to go out. Here’s my post for Above the Law on why.

8am is one of my favorite legal tech vendors. it has been historicaly focused on the unsexy back-office stuff that small and mid-size firms really need. Cash flow. Billing. Getting paid. Not trying to be everything to everybody. It puts on a great conference. But in today’s a legal tech world where money is pouring in, I wonder whether 8am will maintain its focus. Here is my post for Above the Law on what I saw at this year’s conferance and why I have a question.

I’ve been concerned for some time that AI will end up making us all sound the same. That’s a problem for those of us in the persuasion busines. How can we make our arguments stand out in ways that will resonate? There is also a training issue as many of the tasks young lawyers cut their teeth on vanish. Not to mention the impact on how we bill for what we do.

So a study by a creative non-profit for the ad industry that faces similar issues caught my eye. Here’s my Above the Law report on what it found and the questions it raises.