Artificial Intelligence

Companies are no longer judging leaders on what they have already done. They are judging them on whether they can lead what is coming next. And what is coming next demands exactly the quality that defined the Oregon Trail generation: the ability to navigate genuine transformation, not just manage through disruption.

Before asking whether AI use is permissible, defensible or reliable, practitioners have to identify what function the system is supporting in the legal workflow. Treating all legal AI as a single category obscures the actual source of professional risk: not the existence of AI itself but the role the system plays in the provision of legal services.

Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThis is the first installment in a two-part series examining the implications of using generative artificial intelligence in the drafting and prosecution of patent applications. In this part, we address privilege and discovery risks that could arise when GAI tools are used in the patent-drafting process, and we identify targeted discovery strategies that patent litigators should consider when challenging patents that may have been drafted with GAI assistance.

AI-assisted discovery isn’t displacing relationships, referrals or reputation. What it is doing is becoming the context in which all of those things get their first airing. Increasingly, the question a prospective client asks an AI tool is the question your reputation has to answer before you ever enter the room.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

Firms are investing heavily in AI-powered business development tools and simultaneously ignoring the data foundation those tools require to function. You cannot prompt your way out of bad data. Garbage-in, garbage-out. On a galactic scale.

Original research on how ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini decide which legal tech vendors to recommend — and what to do about it.

Part 1 of this article outlined five barriers blocking legal AI adoption — drawn from more than a hundred conversations with legal leaders. But identifying barriers isn’t the same as overcoming them. Some teams have broken through. What separates them from the rest?