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

A lot of professionals still look at AI like it’s some kind of boogeyman — especially in law and media.

I recently took part in a research study where we had to evaluate a court order — basically looking at how clear it was and how well the reasoning held up.

What stood out to me was this:

AI is getting pretty good at spotting problems.

It can flag things like:
• missing analysis
• unclear conclusions
• weak structure

But judgment is a different animal.

In the real world, legal reasoning isn’t just about logic. It’s:
• context
• discretion
• reading between the lines
• understanding what actually matters

And honestly — the order I reviewed wasn’t anything special. You see that kind of thing more often than people think.

Which gets to the bigger point:

There’s a difference between recognizing weak reasoning… and actually producing strong reasoning.

AI is getting better at the first.
The second is a lot harder.

That gap is where experience still matters.

Curious how others are seeing this play out.

What happened is closer to this: I spent hundreds of hours reading federal civil procedure. I read the statutes I was suing under. I read the case law on pleading standards. I went on PACER and just started buying and reading dockets. I used that to have AI help me understand of what a complaint needs to say, and why, and in what order.

Then I used AI the way a lawyer uses a team of associates.

Draft this section. Cross-reference these defined terms. Check whether this allegation satisfies this element of this cause of action. Flag internal inconsistencies across these six documents. Hold the entire case in memory while I think about what comes next.

The AI didn't practice law. I practiced law, badly at first and then less badly, using AI to do the production work that would have otherwise required a team I could not afford.

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.