At Relativity Fest, CEO Phil Saunders announced the bundling of aiR for Review and aiR for Privilege that used to cost extra with the standard Relativity package. But the bigger story? His honesty about what works, what doesn’t, and why trust matters more than revenue.
In an industry where vendors often nickel-and-dime customers and overpromise underperforming products, this approach is refreshing.
Here’s my post for Above the Law.
The American Arbitration Association recently announced it’s launching an AI-powered arbitrator in November. Many litigators think this future will never arrive in litigation. That litigation requires empathy, gut instinct, and the ability to read a room, things AI can’t do (at least yet).
But what if the decision-maker itself becomes an AI bot?
I spoke with insurance GCs about what cases might be ripe for AI decision-making. They believe an AI decions maker in low-stakes disputes where litigation costs exceed the exposure might work. One GC told me she’d happily refer any case under $50k to an AI arbitrator “in a heartbeat.”
But there’s several issues: Bad faith liability. Algorithmic bias. Questions about appeals and transparency. And the biggest concern: consent.
Here is my post for Above the Law.
158 years of business. And poof: Gone. Because of a password like 1-2-3-4.
KNP Logistics learned what many law firms still haven’t: “Security by obscurity and we have cyber insurance” aren’t security strategies.
Multifactor authentication and other security measures cost relatively little. Ignoring them could cost everything, including your ability to tell clients their data is safe.
Here’s my post for Above the Law on why lawyers need to stop making excuses about cybersecurity.
The next to last Keynote at Filevine’s LEX Summit was a big one. It featured an interview of the renowned lawyer Alex Spiro by Ryan Anderson, CEO of Filevine. Two high-powered individuals sharing the stage.
Spiro has tried countless high-profile cases including defending the actor, Alec Baldwin. He’s also represented Elon Musk, the mayor of New York, Jay-Z and countless others.
I wasn’t sure what to expect from such a high powered honest to God trial lawyer. Would he be full of himself? Flashy? Glib?
Continue Reading Want to be a Good Trial Lawyer? Be Unpredictable. Look out the Window. Turn Off ChatGPTA couple of big announcements at Filevine’s LEX Summit this week. The company announced its entry into legal research by integrating AI into its Chat with My Case tool. It also unveiled enhanced deposition tools that address real litigation friction points.
Here’s my post for Above the Law on why these moves matter, what questions remain, and what other legal tech vendors could learn from Filevine’s approach.
In one of the first acquisitions of its kind, legal tech company Lawhive recently acquired outright a UK law firm. This could signal the beginning of a fundamental shift in how legal services are delivered.
As Jordan Furlong recently predicted, AI may enable firms to “generate output that can be sold to clients with no lawyer involvement at all.”The Lawhive acquisition makes this prediction feel less theoretical. Some key questions, though: Will clients know when AI handles their work? How do we balance efficiency gains with quality safeguards? And are we witnessing the first domino in a larger transformation of the legal profession?
Here’s my Above the Law post.
New BigHand survey reveals an ongoing disconnect: clients want budgets and financial transparency, but most law firms providing. There’s an obvious opportunity here that’s by and large being missed.
Key findings:
The problem isn’t just about technology. It’s about lawyers thinking they know how to run a business when many don’t have the training or data to back up their pricing decisions.
For firms willing to invest in proper budgeting tools, training, and transparent client communication, this represents a significant competitive advantage.
Here’s my Above the Law post on the BigHand survey.
Here is a link to my Above the Law article on the importance of words.
I recently had an LLM suggest I remove ‘hot mess’ from a blog title. When I pushed back, it suddenly agreed the term was perfect. That post was one of my more popular ones.
This got me thinking about how much we might be losing when we let AI sanitize our word choices: the difference between good and memorable often comes down to a single word.
For lawyers especially, professionals whose job is communication and persuasion, completly ceding editorial judgment to algorithms that prioritize blandness over impact is a mistake.
Words matter. Don’t let robots choose yours.
Law firms are facing a perfect storm: rising client demand, increased competition, and associates leaving at double the rate from last year.
New data from BigHand shows that 43% of work assignment decisions are based on personal preference rather than merit, and 45% of firms only have partial data on associate capacity and utilization.
The cost of losing a third-year associate now exceeds $1 million. Yet most firms continue resourcing in the dark instead of using data-driven allocation. Partners cling to gut instinct and control, even as associates burn out from uneven workloads or worry about being underutilized.
I’ve seen talented associates written off as underperformers simply because they weren’t getting the right opportunities. One associate I knew went from nearly being fired to becoming an equity partner with top origination numbers all because someone finally matched their skills to the right practice area.
Data-driven resource allocation isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about fairness, reducing attrition, and building stronger firms for the future.
Here’s my post on Above the Law
Figuring out how to train young lawyers in the AI era feels like Churchill’s description of Russia: “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”
NYU’s Clay Shirky argues that students are taking shortcuts with AI despite the best efforts to make it a learning partner. His solution is to go back to in-class assessments, oral exams, and real-time demonstrations of knowledge.
For law schools, this should be somewhat familiar territory with the use of the Socratic method. The problem is that many law school professors may have moved more to a lecture style teaching Shirky says doesn’t work.
In addition, if Shirky is right, law firms need to double down on mentorship and hands-on training that can’t be done exclusively with AI. That takes time and investment in the long term.
Here’s a link to my Above the Law post discussing these very points.