I’m always interested in Clio’s Legal Trends Report that comes out at its vendor’s conference. Clio has lots of data from its customers and otherwise and the Report is always informative. 

What stood out this year was counterintuitively, billable hours are up not down in the age of AI. I had been thinking that hours should be going down. So I may have been wrong.

I got to talk to always perceptive and articulate Lenon of Clio at the conference about the reasons for what seems to be a paradox. And those reasons suggest to me that the trend may not be long-term. Here are my thoughts for Above the Law.

There’s a lot of talk these days about what AI can do. Draft briefs. Review documents. Analyze contracts. Conduct research. Brainstorm ideas. Solve problems. And I’d be the first to say, AI can do a lot. But there’s something AI can’t give you. A mindset.

The determination to find a way to solve your client’s problem, no matter how difficult it looks. The instinct to start with yes instead of no and then figure it out. The willingness to keep looking when the obvious answer doesn’t work. And the understanding that what clients really want isn’t a recitation of all the reasons something can’t be done.

That Damn Bin

I was on a flight recently. You know the drill. We all pile on, stuff our bags in the overhead and hope there aren’t any delays. Then the flight attendants come through and close all the overheads with a bang. Except this time, they didn’t. Or couldn’t.

Continue Reading The Overhead That Wouldn’t Close: A Lesson in Problem Solving

I attended two keynotes at two different vendor conferences recently. The first was at the NetDocuments conference and was presented by CEO Josh Baxter and his team. Here is my write-up for Above the Law. The second was at the Clio conference and was done by its CEO, Jack Newton. Here is the write-up again for Above the Law.

Not only was there a wide divergence in style between the two, they presented a stark difference in strategy and approach.  NetDocuments is focusing on integrations and partnerships. Clio on unifying all products under one roof.  It will be interesting to see whether and which one wins out. 

I attended a fascinating presentation while at NetDocuments Inspire conference. It asked the question of the impact of AI on the relationship between in-house lawyers and outside counsel. The issue whether these two groups will work together on AI adoption and use. Or whether they will go their own ways, which could proof disastrous for outside counsel. I talk about what I think will happen in this piece for Above the Law. What do you think?

I’ve always wondered about all those surveys that suggest how much lawyers are using AI. Especially when I ask how many in my presentation audiences are using AI and few many hands go up.

A Visier study makes me question AI use even more. 48% of those surveyed say they exaggerate AI use. It’s worth thinking about. Here is my post for Above the Law.

One thing I learned over the years about litigating: front end loading and early case assessment were critical for success and strategy. The problem was that took time and clients often balked at paying for it. So when I saw that the recent AI Guide for Litigators from the Thomson Reuters Institute and ILTA focused on just this kind of assessment among other phases, I was intrigued.

Here is my discussion for Above the Law of the Guide and how AI can make early case assessment faster and cheaper.

I was a litigator for many years, much of it spent handling mass torts with high stakes. I know how litigation works. I have seen lawyers turn what ought to be straightforward dispute into a bloody war that exponentially increases time and expense. And that was before AI.

I thought about this as I was reading Richard Tromans’ excellent recent piece in Artificial Lawyer, Legal AI vs The Adversarial Incentive. His idea: the more adversarial a legal matter, the more AI’s efficiency gains get eaten up by more work.

I think he’s right, especially in litigation, where the adversity is greatest. And it explains why law firms haven’t fundamentally changed how they work despite AI, something studies by Deloitte and Harbor Global seem to confirm.

The Adversarial Incentive

You would think that AI would reduce the time for doing things like document review and legal research. That it would narrow the focus of discovery. That it would help frame the arguments in a concise way, so you know what’s worth fighting over. In fact, I recently discussed how front-end loading a case, which can now be done much more efficiently, can do all that. And that’s true for some lawyers. 

Continue Reading Technology and Litigation: A Game of Tit for Tat on Steroids

There’s two ways of looking at a glass: it’s either half full or half empty. I thought about this when I read Everlaw’s 2026 Legal AI Adoption and Impact Report. Everlaw mostly says the AI legal glass is half full but the curmudgeon in me can’t resist a half empty view as well. Or telling a joke about three frogs on a log.

Here’s my post for Above the Law.

Having written recenlty on the difficulty of determining the ROI on the use of AI for substative legal work, I was interested in the recent partnership announcement by Legora and Laurel that includes a commitment to eventually give law firms that ability. There’s is lots of value in knowing that ROI but , once firms know it, the issue is what they do with it and what clients will expect. Here is my discussion of all this for Above the Law.