New features include a self-service agentic workflow builder, AI-powered triage and new drafting capabilities.

LawVu announced the release of LawVu LegalOS, an AI-powered workflow platform for in-house teams.

LegalOS features include AI-powered drafting, triage and a workflow builder.

The platform is designed to help in-house teams automate some workflows and leverage their historical data.

The Coming Litigation Boom from AI-Drafted Contracts:
Over the last year or so, I’ve seen a new pattern: clients sending me agreements they drafted with AI and asking, “Can you just take a quick look?” The answer is usually: yes, but this is not a quick look.

The problem with many AI-generated legal documents is not that they look bad. They often look great. Clean formatting. Confident language. Familiar legal-sounding phrases.

The problem is that they are often missing the stuff that actually matters. The wrong provision. The missing carveout. The undefined term. The remedy that doesn’t work. The risk allocation no one thought about. The issue that only becomes obvious when the deal goes sideways.

That’s where lawyers still matter. A lawyer knows what to ask. What to look for. What’s market. What’s dangerous. What’s missing. And what the client doesn’t even know to worry about.

AI is a powerful tool. I use it. It has made me a better lawyer. But AI in the hands of a non-lawyer drafting legal documents is like a scalpel in the hands of someone who watched a few surgery videos. It may look precise. That doesn’t mean you want to be the patient.

My prediction: AI will not reduce legal disputes in the near term. It will create a new wave of them.

Draft smarter, right where you already work.

Clio for Word is now in beta, bringing legal AI drafting, analysis, and review directly into Microsoft Word so you can stay in the environment where you already do your best work.

Drawing on the world's largest legal database, it generates first drafts, surfaces revision suggestions through track changes, and analyzes documents for legal and structural risks, all without switching applications.

Learn more at the link in comments.

Less than three months after replacing Lexis+ AI with Lexis+ with Protégé as its flagship legal AI platform, LexisNexis today is announcing a substantial expansion of that platform – what the company is calling its “next evolution,” combining significant build-outs of existing capabilities with several completely new ones.

Legal AI is shifting - and it’s not just about better answers anymore.

We’re introducing Protégé Workflows.

Protégé Workflows brings together trusted legal content, your organisation’s knowledge, and AI-powered workflows to support drafting, review, and analysis in one place.

✔️ Use pre-built workflows, or create your own.
✔️ Analyse and summarise documents at scale.
✔️ Work in a private, secure legal AI workspace.
✔️ Draft using Australia's most trusted legal content, and your firm knowledge.

Explore more today ➡️
https://lnkd.in/gFjbEzVt

#LexisNexisAU #Protégé #LegalAI #LegalTech

Okay, so I use LexisAI for case research. ChatGPT plus for rewording emails, drafting demand letters, preparing lawsuits, etc.

I’m trying to start using Gemini because my friends say it’s helpful.

What are you favorite AI platforms and how do you use it for work?

I run a small firm, and I use AI every day. Often for routine work that can result in savings for the client. This is the part I'm happy to write about.

The part that's less thrilling is that recent conversations I'm having with clients are not really with my clients. They're with the models my clients are consulting.

A client sent me an email recently that was carefully organized, with bolded subheadings, a numbered list, and a "Next Steps" section at the bottom. But it did not contain a single fact I could use. I knew within the first paragraph they had not written it.

AI platforms do not know the status of a client's marriage, they don't know if a client gets along with their siblings, and they don't know the underlying reasons why a client is asking for advice.

They don't know, because they don't ask. Or if they do ask, they're not asking the right questions.

AI can create the first draft of a clause once I decide what it should say. It can't decide on its own what it should say.

The billable hour may soon be finished regarding administrative tasks, and that is fine. But the value of a lawyer was never in the typing.

It's in the judgment, the counsel, and the follow-up questions others don't think, or don't know, to ask.

Full post: https://lnkd.in/eJhMdhzp

I use it to draft tons of legal documents- Claude is exceptional at this especially if you give it a template to go off of and plug in the facts.

But I also meticulously proof read and check to make sure there’s no errors. It’s shocking how accurate Claude is- especially compared to ChatGPT.

But so many of my lawyer and non lawyer friends just like do something or look up something on ChatGPT and take it as gospel.

AI can be helpful but like…it’s still in its infancy.

I do think one day we’ll just be sending flawless AI motions and briefs back and forth to each other with a judge plugging them into AI and asking “which is most compelling”

But that day isn’t here yet.

Last week I talked about how legal AI has changed beyond recognition. This week I want to get specific about what that actually looked like in practice.

A huge part of my life as a disputes lawyer was drafting. Correspondence, pleadings, applications. And the reality of drafting, the bit no one talks about, is how much of it isn't really writing at all. It's leafing through the underlying documents trying to find the one paragraph you half remember. It's pulling up a precedent and reworking it line by line. It's writing a sentence, deciding it's not quite right, rewriting it, checking it against the source material, and rewriting it again.

By the time you've done all of that, the deadline is breathing down your neck and the part of the job that actually matters — the judgment calls, the strategy, the structure of the argument — gets whatever time is left over.

When I brought Legora into that process, the way I got to the end goal completely changed. Instead of spending hours cross-referencing materials and fishing out the relevant details myself, I could feed in the underlying documents and get back the key points distilled clearly, ready to work with. That meant the time I used to spend wrestling text into shape was spent on substance instead, considering the draft properly, reworking it, applying my own judgement.

That's what I mean when I say the tools have caught up. They haven't replaced the work. They've made space for the part of it that matters most.

I'd argue that lawyers who aren't using AI are already behind on their ethical obligations.

Every lawyer has a duty to stay competent. That means keeping up with changes in the law, but also changes in HOW law is practiced.

AI is a change in how law is practiced.

If you can use it to work faster, research more thoroughly, and serve your clients better, and you're choosing not to - I think that's worth examining against your competence obligations.

I use it in my own practice - forms, information gathering, parsing documents quickly. It saves time. That time saved gets passed to clients.

But there's a line.

Last year alone, literally thousands of cases were flagged for citing law that didn't exist. It was hallucinated by AI and nobody checked. Many of those led to sanctions.

AI didn't get those lawyers sanctioned. Not checking the output did.

AI can read a statute. It can draft a demand letter that looks completely right and is missing five things a lawyer would catch. It doesn't know what it doesn't know, and neither will your client.

The legal judgment still has to come from you.

Use it and be more effective for your clients. Just don't outsource the part that actually requires a lawyer.

Most lawyers are still figuring that out. The ones who aren't are already falling behind.