Lue appears to have admitted that already.

Fairly common trend at the moment, and it appears to come from specific countries that are in need of tech upgrades.

The major benefits this last few years (law wise) have been in places such as contract law where, like eDiscovery, technology can be trained to target troublesome clauses or omitted considerations.

Last discussion on this firm wise - the AI program was shut down for cost reasons. Tier one firm.

Automated tooling has always carried this weight, and I think that weight will be carried into your legal practice.

Much like forensics, you will have a raft of cases staffed by embarrassed teams that didn't have the time to check a handful of documents.

The barrier to AI is around finding a responsible human. As a Partner or Special Counsel, you must review the documents with your own eyes at least at the final stage. If I had to guess, we're about to see a slew of fresh screws up in the forensic space from AI tooling but what else is new?

You can't sue ChatGPT no matter how good it gets at the law, and OpenAI as a company will never guarantee themselves as lawyers in legal standing even if their technology surpassed that of a veteran barrister.

Further from this, AI hasn't solved a key problem: responsibility. I'm not sure it will. In both court and forensics matters, someone must confirm the findings at this stage and for the foreseeable future.

Younger lawyers are actually key here, because several of them get pushed towards the eDiscovery pipeline and fresh blood is required to understand the new technology and how it might impact existing casework.

Much like battles that were fought in the digital space with technologies like OSINT and eDiscovery, artificial intelligence is going to be a combination of uptake by the new adopters and the courts recognizing its feasibility.

My direct experience in this area is that law firms are struggling to perform follow through, even on the document review portion. Many firms are stuck on their clients wanting to be "model litigants" and being heavily "risk adverse".

Vast majority of companies are evil in some way. People are utterly obsessed with entertainment companies. As a consultant, I haven't worked in a single org that doesn't have a sex pest, some form of fraud, or a professional bully. But this guy, this one guy, he is where the buck stops.

I remember when Security Operations Centers started, Big4 got all over that. Not many of those around in that space any more.

Data breach legislation, they got all over that with their frameworks. Were outpaced on that too.

Curious what if any impact this will actually have.

Typically they live close to the office. Firms have been putting varying levels of pressure to get employees back into the office, and Partners are often leading that charge. That said, when a Partner feels like a work from home day they often just take it, but they have meetings to attend in person

They also lean heavily on juniors who under report their hours to get all of this done.
It's a very nuanced problem to fix. Auditing or oversight just isn't going to do anything.

Scrutiny around accounting is actually desired by these companies in a way. They have significant resources to handle these matters and the more qualifications and requirements that are added essentially makes their competition harder to boot strap.

I finished reading it and I hate the internet again.

However, I now think I know what a grummz is.

Thank you so much. You're a top shelf human being.

I love the internet again. Crisis averted.