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?

Civil lit, solo and sharing this because I've been sitting on it feeling quietly mortified and maybe sharing so no one makes a similar mistake may be useful. Motion for summary judgment, damages issue, used AI to help pull supporting case law, running behind and the citation looked completely legitimate, right format, plausible jurisdiction, reasonable year, case name that tracked with the argument, I read the summary and it made sense so I moved on. Opposing counsel flagged it in their response, the case does not exist. No sanctions, OC was reasonable about it, I filed a corrected brief, life went on. But I submitted a motion with a fabricated citation to a federal court and the only reason it's not a Mata v. Avianca situation is that opposing counsel decided not to make it one, which is not a process control I want to rely on. Every single AI citation gets checked against Westlaw now before it goes anywhere near a filing, no exceptions, especially not when I'm behind, because that's exactly when mistake happens and exactly when I'm most tempted to skip the verification step.