Pacesetter Research: To AI or Not to AI?
Law firms contemplating AI in 2024 is like law firms contemplating desktop computers in 1990
February 28, 2024 at 10:37 AM
7 minute read
By now, unless your law firm is headquartered under a rock, the question of AI has arisen: to AI, or not to AI? However, as was discussed in this year's LegalWeek "Future State of the Industry" panel, a better question might be, why should you bring AI into your firm? Because your competition is using it? Because it might save you money? Because it might do something better than the way your firm currently does things? Because it might help your clients – and impress them? Because it might be important to potential lateral hires?
The truth is, any one of these is a valid reason to start using AI. What is less of a good reason to bring AI into your firm is simply for the sake of bringing AI into your firm. AI is a unique tool and one that most of us are on a learning curve with, quite frankly. We are in an experimental stage at this point very akin to the late 1980s/early 1990s when desktop computers first became widely available (for those of us old enough to remember). ALM's Pacesetter Research is focused on innovation in law, but innovation that has an impact, that makes a difference for clients. Innovation for its own sake is not just pointless, it can get in the way. Innovation is about solving problems, not admiring shiny new things.
So, how do we approach AI? It's everywhere. Whether you know it or not, you have probably already interacted with AI in some form today multiple times. How can you make it work for you in your firm? You can do online searches to see what other law firms are doing with AI, and by the way, you'll find that most think of AI as a cost (or time) saving tool. And they're not wrong – but can it do more for your firm? (Also, on a related note, will your clients soon start asking when you'll be passing those savings on to them? But that's another story.) And of course, there is the other reality that even if your firm hesitates with AI, your lawyers may not be. A Wolters Kluwer report in late 2023 found that 73% of lawyers planned on using it. What does that mean for your firm's risk profile and cyber security framework if some of your lawyers are already using AI in-house?
This content has been archived.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
ALM Market Analysis Report Series: Nashville's Rapid Growth Brings Increased Competition for Law Firms
Pacesetter Research: Workplace Strategy, Opportunity for the Legal Industry?
Trending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
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
