Law Firms Tackle Mental Health, 1 Initiative at a Time

Every decision to onboard a client, partner, lateral hire, contractor, consultant or expert witness carries risk. Yet despite the increasing complexity of that risk, many firms continue to rely on onboarding practices that have not kept pace with the digital world in which their clients and people operate. The result is a widening gap between how risk actually manifests today and how it is assessed at the point of onboarding.

Understanding the “not written by people” feature of AI software is the best lens for viewing AI transactions. The fact that an AI is not a legal entity, prompts the proper legal analysis of AI transactions.

A great debate seems to be rearing its head–is it better to conduct document review with traditional machine learning or with generative AI? This article examines traditional machine learning and generative AI in the context of review for production in litigation matters. While each party seeks to improve efficiency and defensibility, they differ meaningfully in workflow, transparency, human involvement, and overall impact on legal practice.

As insurance retreated from AI exposure, contracts began absorbing functions that insurance once performed. Indemnities compressed. In effect, contracts began underwriting elements of AI risk. This shift has significant consequences for lawyers drafting, negotiating and advising on AI-related agreements.