AI and ADR: Strong Allies or Strange Bedfellows?
For those of us engaged in any aspect of alternate dispute resolution, our professional responsibilities compel us to keep abreast of the evolving trends in technology that are having an increasing impact on our practice as advocates and neutrals.
May 17, 2024 at 12:01 PM
8 minute read
Sometimes it's difficult to assess whether the practice of law has been enhanced or burdened by burgeoning technology. When I entered the profession in the early 1980s, my work as a litigation associate was very different than it is today. We did not have an array of devices to assist us in keeping track of our time or handling our work. I hand wrote my briefs on a yellow legal pad to be typed by my assistant, who would make changes using a memory typewriter. Partners' comments came in red marker (and ideally there were not too many of those). For documents longer than over 10 pages, I submitted revisions to word processing at night (in the basement) and the revised version would miraculously appear on my desk the next morning. I did my research using actual books in the vast library, where I hauled and then reviewed the hefty Shephard's volumes to make sure the cases I cited were still good law. If I needed to refer to something in the file, I made my way to the windowless labyrinth where row after row of imposing ceiling-high shelves held client papers. Suffice it to say, we did not have our own computers, laptops, tablets or other devices that may have confined our heavy lifting to the screen. Telephone service and messaging were also very different from what we are accustomed to today. We received our phone messages on small, pink squares of paper. If someone needed us urgently, the firm used a coded paging system, broadcasting a Morse code-type sequence of bells to summon you. With these methods of communication, we did not work remotely as the available technology did not support working anywhere except the office.
Against this backdrop, the Wall Street firm where I began my career offered aspiring litigators the opportunity to handle employment arbitrations to gain experience examining and cross-examining witnesses, introducing evidence and making objections. It was a crash course on presenting a case and becoming an effective advocate. In 1982, just a year out of law school, on less than 48 hours' notice I was ordered to travel cross-country to handle an arbitration. The dispute was brought by a union worker challenging his suspension for violating safety protocols at the client's manufacturing plant. I boarded the plane with a litigation bag filled with the pleadings, documents and hard copies of the arbitration and evidentiary rules, and a huge knot in my stomach. At my destination, I stayed up all night preparing my opening, witness examinations and exhibits, trying to anticipate objections. Without the internet or access to other information, I was on my own. I remember that the client representatives did not seem very confident when I walked into the arbitration room as their 24-year-old, barely 5-foot-tall advocate—to face off against a more senior adversary before a panel of three imposing arbitrators. Despite the apparent disparities in experience between counsel, we prevailed largely because the client had kept a clear record to justify its actions. What I remember most, 40-plus years later, is that the supervising partner complained that I had spent too much time preparing for the hearing!
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
- 1$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
- 2Prepare Your Entries! The California Legal Awards Have a New, February Deadline
- 3DOJ Files Antitrust Suit to Block Amex GBT's Acquisition of Competitor
- 4K&L Gates Sheds Space, but Will Stay in Flagship Pittsburgh Office After Lease Renewal
- 5US Soccer Monopoly Trial Set to Kick Off in Brooklyn Federal Court
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