Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Navigating the Legal AI Landscape In 2025
The legal industry is approaching a pivotal moment in adopting generative artificial intelligence (GAI). What started as cautious experimentation is now on the brink of widespread use, with law firms and in-house legal teams beginning to more confidently integrate GAI into their workflows. Driven by technological advancements, evolving regulatory frameworks, and growing familiarity with AI's potential, legal professionals are steadily shifting toward embracing GAI to enhance operational efficiency and streamline routine tasks.
UpLevel Ops' analysis of recent AI reports and client feedback highlights this shift as firms move from early trials to more structured GAI adoption. This article explores key insights from the past year, focusing on technological breakthroughs, market growth, regulatory developments, and adoption trends positioning GAI for broader integration across the legal sector.
2023–2024: A Year of Experimentation and Technological Breakthroughs
In 2023, the legal industry was divided between cautious observers and early adopters of GAI. While many firms took a "wait and see" approach, a smaller group ventured into exploratory programs designed to test the technology's full potential. These efforts focused on developing in-house AI models using proprietary data for complex legal tasks such as advanced contract analysis, predictive analytics, and litigation support. At the same time, some tested out new legal tech tools, hoping to push the boundaries of what GAI could accomplish.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.