Legal research has always been one of the most demanding parts of legal work. Deep Research in the next generation of CoCounsel Legal changes the equation.

Highlights

Deep Research in CoCounsel Legal transforms legal research from manual synthesis to autonomous execution.

The system accesses Westlaw content curated by 1,500+ attorney-editors and validated by AI specialists.

CoCounsel Legal delivers end-to-end legal work from research to drafting in a single workflow.

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.

Courts across the country are adopting rules that require lawyers to disclose when they "use" AI in their filings. The intent behind these rules is understandable. But there is a word doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, and it deserves more scrutiny: "use."

Consider a few scenarios.

I pull up a legal-research platform that happens to be powered by AI. I feed it my adversary's brief and ask it to identify every case cited so I can pull and review each one myself. Did I "use" AI? The tool saved me ten minutes of skimming footnotes, but every word of analysis is mine.

Now suppose I go a step further. I ask the platform to generate short summaries of each cited case so I can triage which ones warrant a close read. I still read the key cases in full. I still do the analysis. But AI helped me decide where to focus. Must I file a disclosure?

Or take a different scenario entirely. I draft a brief from scratch — every argument, every citation, every piece of analysis is my own work. But the brief is two pages over the limit. I run it through an AI writing tool to tighten the prose, cut redundancies, and bring it within the page count. The substance is untouched. Is a disclosure required?

These are not hypotheticals I am inventing to be difficult. These are questions that lawyers are confronting right now, and the current patchwork of court rules does not answer them clearly. The word "use" is doing too much work without enough definition. A lawyer who asks AI to draft an entire brief from whole cloth is "using" AI. A lawyer who asks AI to fix a typo is also "using" AI. Surely those two things are not the same, and surely they should not trigger the same disclosure obligations.

We are all still learning — learning which tools work, which tasks are well-suited to AI, and where the guardrails need to be. That learning is happening in real time, and the rules are struggling to keep pace.

I'd love to hear from this community.

Clients: How do you expect your outside counsel to use AI? Which uses do you prohibit? Discourage?

Practitioners: How are you using AI in your practice? Which tasks have you found it's best suited for? Where do you draw the line on disclosure? And do you think the current rules are getting it right — or do they need to catch up to how lawyers are actually working?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. 👇

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 use AI almost daily, yet I'm still amazed by it's capabilities, particularly in law.

At my recent law school reunion, I listened to how attorneys are using AI to strengthen credibility, cite sources, and refine arguments. It all opened my eyes to what's possible when we move beyond speed and start using AI for depth and precision.

AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers who are competent with it will replace those who aren't.

Technology quietly influences how work gets done. Part of AI's ripple effect is that often happens in unexpected ways. The decisions leaders make today about how to apply AI, thoughtfully and strategically, will impact how teams work for years to come.

Full insights here: https://lnkd.in/eR-XmHzV

I use AI regularly in my tax litigation practice, so the new Stanford/Yale study on legal AI tools was required reading.

A few takeaways:

→ Lexis+ AI hallucinated on 17% of queries; Thomson Reuters on 19% — despite vendor claims of "hallucination-free" output.
→ The most dangerous errors weren't fabricated cases. They were real citations that didn't actually support the stated proposition.
→ Human verification isn't optional, and once you build it into your workflow, the efficiency gains are more modest than the marketing suggests.

These tools are useful. They're just not the finished product the vendors describe.

In tax, where a misapplied authority has real consequences, reading the source is still the job. In fact, I recently developed a helpful acronym to remind myself of responsible AI use: F.I.R.M.

Frame the Context: Provide jurisdiction, facts, and objectives so AI delivers relevant, tailored output.

Instruct with Precision: Give clear, specific guidance. Vague prompts produce vague results.

Review and Verify: Confirm every citation, case, and claim. Protect confidentiality before entering any data.

Maintain Accountability: Your name, your license, your duty. AI assists; it never replaces professional judgment.

What does “AI in Legal” actually look like in day‑to‑day work?

Here's a short demo I recently presented at the ABN AMRO Legal Conference of how I use Microsoft Copilot inside a real legal workflow — not as a gimmick, but as a genuine productivity and quality booster. This shows how Microsoft Copilot's Researcher Agent changes regulatory horizon scanning or assessment of regulation workflows. This used to mean weeks of work — cross-referencing legislative trackers, assessment of regulation, deep analyses of clauses, drafting a memo from scratch. In this short demo, you'll see how Microsoft Copilot's Researcher Agent changes that workflow entirely. The scenario: Regulatory expert tasked with scanning the proposed EU Cybersecurity Act 2.0 and producing a briefing memo to take to the business and CISO. Watch how the agent goes wide across multiple authoritative sources simultaneously, considers overlap in Dutch regulation, and produces a structured, fully cited memo — in minutes. The legal judgment (ensuring the output is authoritative, traceable, and accountable) continues to sit with the legal professional. The economics of producing the foundation just changed completely.

The big takeaway:
Copilot doesn’t replace legal reasoning — it creates space for it.
If you’re curious about how AI can augment legal work (responsibly and realistically), this is a good place to start.

#LegalTech #MicrosoftCopilot #AIinLaw #InHouseLegal #ResponsibleAI #FutureOfWork #LegalOperations

I built a legal research agent that writes structured memos in 3 minutes.

I built a contract review tool that flags 23 risk categories across any commercial agreement.

I built a client intake system that cut my admin work from 3 hours a week to 20 minutes.

None of this required a developer. None of it required coding knowledge. I built all of it using AI tools that are available to every lawyer and law student right now.

And most of you have no idea these tools exist.

That is the problem I am solving on April 18th.

I am running a free 2-hour live workshop where I will show you exactly how AI can transform the way you practice law, study law, and build a legal career.

This is not a webinar where someone reads slides about "the future of legal tech." I am going to open my laptop, share my screen, and build things in front of you. Live.

Here is what I will cover:

- How to build AI agents that handle legal research, drafting, and document review in minutes instead of hours. Not in theory. I will build one live during the workshop.

- How to automate the repetitive parts of legal practice: client intake, memo generation, contract checklists, compliance tracking — so you can focus on the work that actually requires a lawyer's judgment.

- The exact AI tools I use in my own practice every day. What works. What does not. What is worth paying for and what is a waste of money.

- How law students can use AI right now to prepare better research, write better memos, and walk into their first job with skills most senior associates do not have yet.

- Prompt engineering for legal work, the difference between getting generic output and getting something you can actually send to a client.


The details:

Date: April 18, 2026
Time: 8:00 PM IST

I am keeping registrations limited because I want this to be interactive, not a broadcast. If you have questions during the session, I will answer them live.

Register here: https://lnkd.in/gnzEcQ4s

Who should attend:

- Law students who want to graduate with skills their peers will not have.
- Junior associates drowning in research and drafting work.
- Solo practitioners and freelance lawyers who want to take on more clients without burning out.
- Senior lawyers who keep hearing about AI but have not seen it actually work on legal tasks.
- Anyone who has tried ChatGPT for legal work and thought "this is not useful", because you were using the wrong tool the wrong way.

I have spent hundreds of hours testing AI tools on real legal work. Contracts, memos, research, compliance, client communication. I know what works and I know what fails. This workshop is everything I have learned, compressed into 2 hours, demonstrated live.

See you there.

#AIforLawyers #LegalTech #LawStudents #LawyersofLinkedIn #LegalAI #FreeLegalWorkshop #AIWorkshop #LegalInnovation #FutureLawyer #AIAgents

I'm not anti-AI. I want to get that out of the way first, because what I'm about to say is going to sound like it's coming from someone who is. It's not.

I use AI every day. It's made my work faster, sharper, and more competitive. I've watched it get genuinely good at legal analysis, document synthesis, case research, things that used to take hours. I'm impressed by it, which is exactly why I can see where it falls apart.

There was a recent decision in US that said AI prompts were disclosable in litigation as they didn't attract privilege (I have incredibly oversimplified this)

Whilst we are a completely different jurisdiction and have different rules on privilege, but this serves as a good warning.

Spoiler - lawyers use AI, personally I use two different AI tools (one attached to a legal research database and the other on my case management system) both cost a huge amount of money per year compared to the open-source products and also have GDPR compliant data controls (unlike open source). But I know how the free/low cost alternatives have been useful to many litigants. So don't stop, but be wise, just in case we somehow follow the US court's lead, this would include:
- no telling AI your settlement expectations
- no writing anything you wouldn't want your opponent or courts to see
- if you're uploading documents to analyse make sure it is a document that is in circulation or that you will be disclosing
- turn off the feature that allows the chat to train other models

Lawyers on this page, can you think of any other tips?