Turbocharge Your Legal Practice With AI
A discussion of how lawyers could benefit from using AI in their legal practice.
August 16, 2023 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Let's get right to the point. Many lawyers could benefit from using AI in their legal practice. Here's how:
- Reduced workload: AI can automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks such as document review, proofreading, and legal research, freeing up lawyers' time for higher-level work.
- Enhanced analysis and identification: AI can assist lawyers in analyzing and identifying persuasive precedents by providing quick access to relevant information and improving the quality control of documents.
- Improved client relations: By delegating low-level tasks to AI, lawyers have more time to engage with clients, develop strategies, and keep clients better informed throughout the legal process. This can lead to stronger client relationships and satisfaction.
- Increased productivity: AI tools can increase attorney productivity by reducing the time spent on manual tasks, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and value-added work.
- Efficiency and cost-effectiveness: AI can help lawyers streamline their workflow, leading to increased efficiency and cost savings for law firms.
- Legal research and analysis: AI can assist lawyers in conducting legal research more quickly and consistently, spotting issues, and finding relevant documents.
- Automation and task management: AI can automate routine tasks such as scheduling, client intake, and email communication, improving efficiency and organization within a law firm.
Of course, it's important for lawyers to use AI responsibly and ethically, considering potential biases and privacy concerns. A Clio article suggests that proper training and education are key to ensuring the responsible use of AI in the legal profession. Exactly what is AI? The article states:
AI systems leverage intelligent algorithms that classify, analyze, and make predictions from large amounts of data. These algorithms are trained using large datasets (i.e. "training data") so that they can identify patterns in data, make predictions, and recommend actions.
As an example, do you ever struggle through analyzing discovery requests or subsequently writing up a motion to compel when someone fails to respond to discovery in a timely and thorough fashion?
This content has been archived.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 All
Walking the AI Tightrope: Communicating Innovation Without Undermining Core Values
5 minute read
Judges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger
The Challenge of AI Governance: The Blessing and the Curse of Safeguarding Personal Data
13 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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
