Every leap forward in legal AI has been previewed by AI tools for software engineers, which are similar but always a year ahead.
The next unimaginable leap will be the elimination of Word as the primary way lawyers interact with documents.
Engineers are no longer coding in code editors. Agents have become so good that they’re dropping their IDE and just reviewing the work of their agents.
Lawyers will not see this coming, just as engineers didn’t see it coming.
“MAKE NO MISTAKES. DO NOT HALLUCINATE. ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH. CITE EVERYTHING. DONT ADD MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED. MAKE IT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR CLIENT TO READ. DONT USE ANY EM DASHS”
Lawyer who submitted appellate brief citing 2 fake cases is asked to explain before 7th Circuit.
Lawyer insists she did not use AI, says she is "too technologically challenged to even attempt to use AI."
Sanctions: public admonishment only.
What's interesting here is that a computer did the fun, creative job of drawing Kermit in various scenarios, and then a human did the boring, labor-intensive job of creating shortcuts with custom thumbnails to open all of their favorite apps. https://t.co/jjgI3uh9iu
Long discussion with senior partner at major Bay Area law firm today
> expects legal AI to decimate profession
> law firms charge by hour, and gen AI specifically cuts time for many many tasks
> unimpressed by most specific legal AI offerings
> chatGPT with some prompting is still superior than specific tools
> 10-20% error rate is acceptable -> “ 😂 you should see how dumb associates are, partners have to correct everything anyway and don’t trust associates fully”
> feels lots of work will transition to in-house counsel. No need to hire external firms that charge by the hour when twenty minutes with chatGPT can get you decent results
> personally looking to move in-house
> good for areas of law where services were too expensive for many to afford for eg divorces
> terrible for juniors entering the profession
Of one large legal AI player
> tested product in January, was useless. Just simple prompting directly with chatGPT gave better results
> founders were like what first year associates? They don’t understand how law is practiced
> they’re very well funded but law firms are struggling to use them
> heard most of their revenue is coming from PWC, audit and compliance work rather than legal
guess what happens every time to a space that ever existed where “magic” occurred?
i’ll give you a hint, depending on the weather it either starts with “g” and ends with “entrification” or it starts with “h” and ends with “eavy regulations”
🚽
It turns out that many legal professionals are NOT using AI legal tools. A new survey of 384 attorneys today from @Law360 found no clear winner among these #legaltech tools in use. Read the full analysis: https://t.co/w10UrXQh1n
A couple fun privacy facts about CourtListener:
1) We don't use Google Analytics, and instead opt for a much more private tracker to log usage stats. Even then, we only log traffic on one of ten page loads. When we look at our dashboard, we multiply × 10 to get real numbers.