Is Your Legal Department Ready for AI? Here Are 4 Signs
Legal teams interested in artificial intelligence tools should be prepared for the good and bad changes the technology can bring before they try to implement it.
December 18, 2018 at 05:31 PM
2 minute read
Artificial intelligence opportunities may catch legal departments attention in 2019, with promises of more accurate work done faster and cheaper.
But not all legal teams are ready to take the AI plunge, contract automation company LawGeex's chief legal strategist Lucy Bassli said in a recent webinar. Bassli laid out four ways she can tell whether or not a legal team is ready to adopt AI.
- More Than Curious: AI tools should be used to solve an identified problem. But Bassli said some legal teams want to use AI tools for the sake of using AI, not to improve a targeted issue. Successful teams should know why they want to use AI tools and what for. “Just the curiosity alone isn't quite enough to make this a successful experience,” she said.
- Learn to Let Go: General counsel who can't trust AI tools to work accurately are not ready to implement the tech, Bassli said. She's heard interested AI users claim they'll still need to read over every contract thoroughly—but that negates the time-saving abilities of AI. Contracts will be accurate the vast majority of the time, she said, and GCs should be willing to take a risk on the small chance that a contract isn't perfect to save time and money. “Automation will be successful only if there is a comfort with assuming some risk,” she said.
- Time Crunch: Legal teams that already have a service-level agreement with the business to turn contracts around in a short time period are top contenders for AI adoption, Bassli said, because “benefits for those kinds of companies are extremely high.” Those legal teams may be struggling to review a slew of contracts in a short period of time.
- Perfect the Process: Legal departments should look at the process they want to automate—identify the bottlenecks, who is involved in the process and the time it currently takes. If the process doesn't work well, it's not a good candidate for AI. “If you add automation into a bad process, [you're] simply automating a bad process,” Bassli said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250