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This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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
- 1Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
- 2What Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
- 3Defense Counsel Turns $2.2 Million Broward Jury Verdict to $500K
- 4United Soccer League Scores General Counsel
- 5Matt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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