AI in Transactional Law: Letting Technology Manage the Trees So Attorneys Can Tend to the Forest
Computers can't proactively advise or counsel clients so that they can avoid conflicts or problems such as reactionary litigation later, but it can give attorneys time to do so.
January 08, 2019 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
We've all wished for that perfect legal intern: the one who comes for the summer but stays on long after learning how to do the job, plows cheerfully through piles of rote paperwork, finds every error, highlights every possible concern, and earns your trust through flawless performance and tireless work ethic. If you're lucky enough to have worked with such an intern, you know the joy that comes from focusing on the higher-level aspects of your job without worrying about the details.
The good news is that you have a way to permanently bring that intern into your transactional law practice by adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technology.
|Advances in AI Technology
To be clear, AI nowadays is simply the ability of computers and software to perform tasks that historically were viewed as the exclusive territory of human intelligence. AI systems might recognize and even translate language, categorize data and use it to make decisions, or identify different types of objects.
Newer AI systems have given computers shockingly human-like abilities; natural language processing, for example, allows computers to recognize concepts regardless of the specific words used to communicate them. And these increased capabilities have not come at the cost of speed or efficiency. As ever, AI can still crunch through vast quantities of data in a fraction of the time it would take humans to review it.
This has opened the door for a wholesale disruption of legal practice. It's also created a considerable tension between the new world order and our historical approach. For example, the very idea that AI can save lawyers hours or even days of monotonous work conflicts with the traditional billable-hour payment structure employed by most firms. Some in the legal industry fear that they won't be able to keep pace with changes in technology or that AI will mean the end of entry-level jobs.
It won't. Here's why…
|AI Applications in Transactional Law
AI systems are perfectly complementary with transactional law. Contracts, policies, due diligence documents, international regulations, and tax codes can change daily, yet those changes are often miniscule and easily missed. Further, all of these documents are mind-numbingly voluminous.
This is exactly the environment where AI systems flourish. What AI is taking over for lawyers is, so far, mostly rote “search and find” work, assisting rather than replacing humans. AI, like the dream intern, will allow transactional lawyers to “stop doing repetitive, repeatable and mundane legal work.”
For instance, today's AI can analyze contracts, identifying specific obligations, risks, variances, and key dates or quantities or comparing terms for due diligence assessments. JPMorgan has been an early adopter, achieving rapid results with its AI-powered program, “COIN” (short for “COntract INtelligence”), which interprets commercial loan agreements. In literal seconds, COIN can evaluate agreements that would have consumed 360,000 hours of attorney time.
Other types of contract software can help attorneys draft new contracts in a fraction of the time. By analyzing language and learning common legal terms and phrases, AI can check for ambiguities or inconsistencies, flag undefined terms, and highlight variations that need hands-on attorney attention. This is the crux of leveraging AI for maximum results: letting smart technology search for and identify problems so that attorneys can spend their valuable time fixing them rather than finding them.
Having AI handle the nitty-gritty details frees lawyers up to look at the big picture. Computers can't proactively advise or counsel clients so that they can avoid conflicts or problems such as reactionary litigation later, but it can give attorneys time to do so. Indeed, the core of transactional lawyering is the human capacity for “strategy, creativity, judgment, and empathy—and those efforts cannot yet be automated.”
What's more, we're rapidly building a data universe that's too expansive for humans to navigate—meaning we're going to need AI's assistance just to keep up.
|We've Created a World So Complex That We Need AI
Transactional law has always been about lawyers' ability to see both the big picture and the tiny details at once. Mastery of those details gives us the ability to raise our perspective to the altitude we need to offer holistic solutions. Now, though, we've created a system that breeds so much data that it threatens to obscure our view of the forest. Data is growing exponentially with no sign of a slowdown. Everything we do is recorded, sending a relentless stream of data into the seemingly limitless stores of the cloud.
Someone, somewhere, has to evaluate what all of that information means for each company that owns it, as well as how it works with the massive volume of laws and regulations that our global society must abide by.
As executive director, Travis Leon is responsible for driving Litera Microsystems' global new business operations, developing key relationships with clients and contributing to general strategy decisions. Prior to joining Litera Microsystems, Travis co-founded XRef to assist law firms in dealing with competing market pressures by leveraging technology to more efficiently and cost-effectively achieve excellence in legal drafting. Previously, Travis qualified and practiced as a solicitor in the Derivatives and Structured Products Group at Linklaters in London.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Western NY Justice Agrees to Public Admonishment Over 'Obvious' Conflict of Interest
- 2How to Litigate Before the EU’s Top Court, the European Court of Justice
- 3After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
- 4Attorneys Allege Contract Broken for Sharing $13M in Fees From MDL
- 5ZwillGen Acquires Lawyers, Scientists and Technology from Luminos.Law, Developer of Luminos.AI Platform
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