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.

From Practice to Product: What Legal AI Looks Like from the Inside — Week 1

For the next 6 weeks, I'm going to show you some of my favorite aspects of Legora!

Confession: I used to spend hours building chronologies.

Scrolling. Copying. Pasting. Double-checking dates. Wondering if I missed something buried on page 243…

Now? I let AI do the heavy lifting—and I sanity check like a lawyer should 😉

This week I’m kicking things off with one of my favorite Legora features: tabular review → instant chronology building.

In this quick video, I show how you can:
- Pull key events from a document set
- Structure them into a clean, usable table
- Turn that into a working chronology in minutes (not hours)

It’s one of those workflows that makes you rethink how legal work gets done.
Curious how others are using AI for early case analysis—what’s your go-to approach?

#LegalAI #LegalTech #AIinLaw #Lawyers #Innovation #Legora

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?

As a “tech-savvy” lawyer, this is how I use AI — and where I refuse to rely on it.

It’s important for us, as lawyers, to understand that AI is not intelligence, it is prediction.

It does not understand law. It recognizes patterns in how law has been written, argued, and interpreted before. This distinction matters more than most people realize.

In my practice, AI has become an instrument of acceleration — but never a substitute for judgment.

- I use AI to interrogate large volumes of information quickly.
- To identify structural patterns across agreements.
- To compare regulatory approaches across jurisdictions.
- To test the internal consistency of legal reasoning.

It compresses hours of mechanical effort into minutes. But as lawyers, it’s important for us to understand that law is not a mechanical profession, it is a profession of consequence.

AI can tell you what is typical. It cannot tell you what is safe.

It can identify what has been done before. It cannot evaluate what should never be done.

It does not bear liability.
It does not exercise fiduciary responsibility.
It does not understand risk in the way a human advisor must.

The greatest risk of AI in law is not that it will be wrong. It is that it will sound right. Create a nice attractive graphic also for this list

Which is why the real shift is not technological. It is cognitive.

Legal Practice – AI empowerment not AI replacement

I read a very recent article where a Tech CEO stated “So white-collar work, where you’re sitting down at a computer, either being a lawyer or an accountant or a project manager or a marketing person – most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months.”

Working at InfoTrack I’ve come to spend more and more time using and understanding AI not least of all because we at InfoTrack are fully committed to AI and AI-enabling products for the benefit of our clients and the profession, but I am also exposed to how the profession is adopting and using AI.

Yes the rate of AI adoption in the legal industry is unprecedented, and not a day goes by when I don’t look back on a career spent trying to convince law Firms to early-adopt and wish we had seen this rate of adoption all along, but the stated narrative in the article definitely doesn’t track with what I’m seeing and experiencing…

AI is already excellent at tasks, like drafting, summarising, extracting key information, analysing large datasets and it will undoubtedly keep improving, but last time I checked the practice of law is not a collection of isolated tasks. It’s sound judgement under uncertainty, it’s risk allocation, it’s navigating ambiguity and it’s advising a clear path forward when there isn’t a clean answer to be found, and critically — it’s a lawyer’s willingness to be held accountable and stand behind their advice.

Legal work operates inside a framework of licensing, professional standards, insurance, regulation and personal liability. Clients aren’t paying for text generation or task completion, clients are paying for sound judgement and accountability. Technology can accelerate output, but it does not automatically assume responsibility – and that distinction matters.

So, I believe what’s far more realistic to expect than eradication of the profession is acceleration and augmentation. Routine work compresses, turnaround improves, capacity increases and the relative value of judgement, strategy and client counsel goes up. That doesn’t weaken the profession - it sharpens it. Big automation claims generate urgency and urgency generates uptake, but professions built on trust and regulation don’t transform overnight. They evolve deliberately — especially where accountability sits squarely with a human.
AI will reshape legal work there’s no doubt about that, but replacement is a very different claim from transformation.

I’m optimistic about AI in legal, but I’m just as optimistic about lawyers. I don’t believe the immediate future is AI replacing the profession — it’s AI empowering it. In the right hands, AI can unlock enormous upside, including greater access to the law and to legal representation.