For
the
last
couple
years,
legal
tech
shows
mostly
involve
vendors
explaining
how
they’ve
“slapped
some
AI
on”
their
products
and
vaguely
promising
that
some
future
iteration
of
AI
will
arrive
to
assist
every
step
of
the
attorney
workflow.
But
great
leaps
in
generative
AI
capabilities
seems
unlikely
to
arrive,
being
that
the
most
exciting
AI
development
of
the
last
several
months
wasn’t
an
advancement
but
rather
DeepSeek
unveiling
TemuGPT
for
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
However,
this
doesn’t
make
generative
AI
any
less
revolutionary.
As
a
user
experience
enhancement,
it
can’t
be
beat.
Lawyers
who
used
to
shun
technology
are
now
routinely
interacting
with
it
through
plain
language
conversations.
Beyond
its
value
as
an
intermediary,
there
are
several
points
along
the
lawyer
workflow
—
even
if
it’s
not
every
point
along
the
workflow
—
that
AI
can
exponentially
enhance.
For
whatever
reason,
this
year’s
Legalweek
felt
like
a
turning
point
in
the
generative
AI
conversation.
Over
the
last
few
years,
vendor
pitches
tended
to
focus
on
the
promise
of
AI-to-come.
This
time
around,
most
of
the
pitches
focused
on
grounded,
specific
use
cases.
It
reminded
me
of
a
Netdocuments
anecdote
from
late
last
year,
where
they
zeroed
in
on
Boies
Schiller
using
the
product
to
rapidly
catch
the
team
up
on
an
inherited
case
with
a
looming
hearing,
as
well
as
a
session
from
RelativityFest
where
a
user
compared
cost
and
accuracy
figures
for
a
first
pass
review.
You
interrogate
discovery
material
differently
when
making
rapid
assessments
for
a
scheduling
hearing
than
when
you’re
drafting
a
summary
judgment
motion.
In
a
conversation
with
DISCO
last
week
about
its
AI
tool
and
the
value
it
can
provide
in
making
quick
assessments
to
get
a
step
ahead
in
strategy
at
the
outset
of
a
matter
—
having
a
sense
of
the
risks
as
early
as
possible
in
the
case
matters.
In
both
of
these
examples,
the
emphasis
was
on
painting
a
picture
of
a
real
moment
familiar
to
a
practitioner
and
making
the
value
proposition
there.
This
might
seem
like
a
small
shift,
but
it
hits
differently
than
“we’re
investing
in
AI
which
will
soon
do
everything
for
you.”
And
clients
might
be
noticing
this.
Last
week,
the
second
installment
of
The
General
Counsel
Report
2025
dropped.
Produced
by FTI
Consulting
and
Relativity based
on
interviews
conducted
by
Ari
Kaplan
Advisors
and
surveys
by
Censuswide,
this
edition
focused
on
AI
adoption
from
the
in-house
perspective.
And
in-house
legal
departments
are
getting
very
comfortable
with
it.
Of
course
in-house
has
one
of
the
best
use
case
stories.
Especially
on
the
legal
operations
side
where
legal
can
position
themselves
as
a
revenue
enhancer
as
opposed
to
a
cost
sink.
Turning
contracts
and
getting
deals
done
faster
matters.
But
with
more
comfort
on
their
own
side
of
the
house,
comes
increased
faith
in
outside
counsel’s
use
of
AI:
Bizarrely,
one
of
the
few
cases
in
this
survey
where
in-house
lawyers
aren’t
“comfortable”
or
better
is
early
case
assessment,
which
would
strike
me
as
one
of
the
most
compelling
AI
stories.
That’s
where
the
bots
are
more
likely
to
find
—
CHEAPLY
—
the
smoking
gun
buried
in
your
own
documents
and
figure
out
that
it’s
time
to
settle
before
the
bills
pile
up.
How
many
matters
drag
on
for
weeks
before
someone
stumbles
upon
the
rogue
employee
that
screwed
everything
up
with
one
email?
That’s
something
AI
has
a
high
probability
of
sussing
out
within
a
day.
But
it’s
queries
like
this
from
the
GC
Report
that
show
the
shift
in
thinking.
Here’s
a
question
asking
about
narrow
and
specific
cases.
This
is
the
information
that’s
informing
vendor
pitches
and
when
they’re
seeing
client
comfort
distributed
differently
by
use
case,
they’re
adapting
to
that.
A
peer
shared,
“Our
law
firms
are
permitted
to
use
AI
tools
but
cannot
bill
the
firm
for
that
work
alone.
I
want
them
to
do
work
we
cannot
do
in
house.
I
would
quickly
lose
faith
in
outside
counsel
if
they
replaced
some
of
their
thought
with
AI
results
alone.
E-discovery,
document
review,
and
legal
operations
are
excellent
use
cases
for
AI.”
There
again
is
the
heightened
interest
in
uses.
This
is
the
rhetoric
that
seemed
to
trickle
down
to
the
providers
this
year
Which
sparks
a
virtuous
cycle,
because
clients
had
every
reason
to
be
worried
about
one-size-fits-all
AI.
If
an
AI
product
can
do
“everything,”
will
outside
counsel
start
feeding
it
material
that
the
client
wouldn’t
want
in
there?
Will
firms
trust
the
technology
with
tasks
the
client
isn’t
on
board
with?
Can
the
client
even
police
the
day-to-day
use
of
such
a
broad
AI?
This
shift
to
“low-risk,
high-reward”
use
cases
is
working
because
it
de-escalates
the
fear
and
replaces
it
with
manageable
curiosity.
Contract
redlining?
Sure.
E-discovery
grunt
work?
Love
it.
Summarizing
300
emails
from
Bob
in
Procurement
into
a
single
bullet
point?
Inject
it
into
my
veins.
All
this
might
be
less
exciting
to
the
investors
who
thrive
on
the
idea
that
generative
AI
amounts
to
the
“magic
beans”
that
will
soon
replace
humans
with
Roomba
attorneys
to
the
benefit
of
their
insatiable
quest
for
wealth,
but
it’s
going
to
make
the
technology
a
lot
easier
to
swallow
for
lawyers.
Majority
of
General
Counsel
Indicate
Openness
to
Using
AI
in
Nearly
Every
Major
Legal
Use
Case,
According
to
The
General
Counsel
Report
[FTI
Consulting]
Earlier:
New
GC
Report
Details
All
The
In-House
Concerns
That
Ceased
To
Matter
Around,
Say,
Inauguration
Day