Traditional law firms vs. tech-affiliated AI-first firms: The future may not be what we think it is. Blackstone recently invested  in the legal tech complinace vendor Norm AI, which then immediately launched its own law firm offering “AI-native legal services.” We’re starting to see tech companies create captive law firms to deliver legal services at scale.

Will this disrupt traditional BigLaw? Are we prepared for what happens when “lawyer in the loop” becomes less the standard and more an anomaly? What this could mean for access to justice, firm economics, and the profession itself. 

Here is my Post for Above the Law.

Back from Summit AI in NYC with some hard questions still unanswered. While 5,000+ attendees celebrated AI’s potential, critical discussions about infrastructure challenges, verification economics, and workforce displacement were largely missing. My ten takeaways from a conference that felt more like an AI love fest than a serious examination of where we’re headed. Legal professionals especially need to pay attention not only to the opportunities but also the challenges.Here is my post for Above the Law

Business leaders from Unilever, EY, and NBC Universal shared a consistent message at the AI Summit: embrace the ‘I don’t know’ and think holistically about AI transformation.

The contrast with how most law firms approach AI couldn’t be more striking. While other industries talk about reimagining entire workflows, legal still treats AI as something to bolt onto existing processes.

They also discussed the concept of  “cultural debt”:following the cow path just because it’s visible, even when it leads nowhere productive. Sound familiar?

After 30+ years in legal, I’m convinced the survivors from the AI revolution will be firms that think less like lawyers and more like business leaders who see the big picture. Here is my post for Above the Law.

A new Washington Post analysis of 47,000 ChatGPT conversations reveals a troubling pattern. People are sharing deeply personal information, getting advice that tells them what they want to hear (not necessarily what’s accurate), and creating potential discovery goldmines for future litigation.

The study found users discussing emotions, sharing PII and medical info, and asking for drafts of all sorts of stuff. Whatever is asked, ChatGPT says ‘yes’ 10x more often than ‘no.’

As lawyers, we have an ethical duty to understand technology risks. The question isn’t any longer whether GenAI will impact our practices. It’s whether we’ll educate our clients about these dangers before they create their own smoking guns. Here’s my post for Above the Law. 

The grade school game seemed simple enough. Grab the other team’s flag without getting tagged. But for a kid like me with not much athletic talent, the chances of being a factor other than getting quickly tagged out were pretty remote. Or so it seemed.

One of the questions I am often asked by young lawyers is how I get to where you are and develop a successful practice and career. 

It All Started With Capture the Flag

I tell them it all started with Capture the Flag.  For the uninitiated, Capture the Flag is a school yard game where the playing area is divided into two territories. Each team has a flag placed somewhere within their side of the field. Players try to grab the flag but if they cross into the other side’s territory they can be tagged and are out. To win you have to get the flag.

Two AmLaw 100 firms are doing something unusual: sacrificing billable hours to train associates in AI.

Ropes & Gray lets first-years spend up to 400 hours (20% of their requirement) on AI training. Latham & Watkins flew 400 associates to DC for a two-day AI Academy.

The revenue hit? Probably minimal. First-years aren’t profit centers anyway, and clients often won’t pay for junior associate time.

The learning boost? Likely significant.

As Thomas Suh from LegalMation told me: mastering AI requires giving lawyers the “grace to dabble” , time to experiment and fail without billing pressure.

Most firms are still wringing their hands about AI’s impact. Smart firms are training lawyers to leverage it.

Here’s my post for Above the Law.

New research from Disco and Ari Kaplan reveals a striking contradiction in legal’s relationship with AI and eDiscvovery. While 70% of legal professionals recognize AI’s efficiency benefits, only 35% have actually incorporated it into routine processes.

Even more telling: 42% of law firms report zero external pressure to adopt AI solutions. .

The reasons for resistance? The usual : billable hour concerns, “perfect vs. good” thinking, and the classic “we’ve always done it this way” mentality.

Here’s why this matters: eDiscovery has historically been the proving ground for legal tech adoption. When court deadlines force efficiency over billable hours, innovation happens.

With 96% reporting increasing eDiscovery workloads and new data sources (including AI prompts and outputs), the pressure for change is building.

The irony? The same factors making lawyers resist change like time constraints and risk aversion, may ultimately force the adoption they’re avoiding.

Here’s my post for Above the Law.

Small firm lawyers keep telling me they can’t afford the AI tools big firms use. They’re not wrong, I’ve heard vendors literally laugh at affordability concerns. So when I came across Descrybe, a legal research platform with free core features (and paid plans at only $10-20/month), it got my attendtion and I dug deeper. Here’s my post for Law Technology Today.