Artificial Intelligence

The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.

Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.

The use of AI does not alter fundamental obligations of accuracy, reasonableness and accountability. The legal risk lies not in the existence of hallucinations but in the failure to govern and verify them.

The Court held that intent is required and that mere awareness of infringement does not establish secondary liability.

In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features. They choose on trust. They are selecting a company they believe will honor its commitments. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.

Artificial intelligence is everywhere in 2026. The promise is real, but who is tracking how your AI agreements are reshaping enterprise risk? And how has that risk changed with the increase in agreements and obligations related to these AI tools? Enter the AI playbook.

Until recently, little focus has been placed on the impact of “vibe lawyering,” i.e., non-lawyers, including clients, using AI to conduct their own analysis of a legal issue, either before, after, or instead of consulting with counsel. Two recent federal court decisions highlight the risks of vibe lawyering beyond the issue of hallucinated citations and indicate potential benefits to both lawyers and pro se litigants in relation to the use of AI.

Lawyers gain their strength and effectiveness from hard work. We have not been able to persuade ourselves that the so-called shortcut of prompting a machine to produce a more believable answer is a good thing, if it robs the product, the client, the court, and the lawyer’s reputation of the benefit of immersive research into the facts, policies, goals, and history of the problem and the present state of the law.