LJN Newsletters

Why advanced AI will change legal practice without making lawyers obsolete.The future value of lawyers will come less from generating first drafts and more from knowing how to choose, feed, test and deploy professional systems in a way that serves the client’s strategy.

The legal industry is going through the same leadership reckoning playing out across the Fortune 1000. The pioneers are already on the far side of the river. The settlers are crossing. And the stragglers are still deciding whether to go. Which camp are you in? And more importantly, who are you learning from right now?

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 the next CRM or AI investment, answer three questions honestly: Where does its data come from? How does it stay current without asking attorneys to maintain it? And what happens to our relationship intelligence when a partner walks out the door?

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.

Two recent cases raised a recurring real property issue: When can a party burdened by a restrictive covenant obtain judicial removal of the covenant pursuant to RPAPL 1951? The cases shed modest light on this muddy issue.

It’s been an active season for the federal appeals courts on the copyright law front. This article summarizes three of these recent circuit court decisions.