I am not an attorney, but have been a litigation legal admin for over two decades in a major American megacity. I feel that this position may actually lend me towards a more objective analysis than a litigation attorney or the article's author, because I am a longtime assistive witness to the process of law without necessarily being its direct proponent/creator.

There were things I found problematic about this article. One of the primary aspects I found incomplete was that it doesn't go on to specify HOW he supposedly used AI to avoid the necessity for a litigation attorney. To me that was a vital piece of information necessary for the author to prove their point, and its omission means the essay is significantly flawed.

Much like a surgeon, a litigation attorney knows 'surgical' techniques - they know the specific dynamics of law that are at play. They further know from local experience with judges (and their colleagues' experience with same) and the "plaintiffs' bar" (i.e. people who are looking to make cases) which techniques are best for which set of circumstances, much like a surgeon can evaluate which surgical techniques are best suited for the job they see in front of them -- they have the power of accurately observing and evaluating what is in front of them in full 3D high definition, whereas AI is going to be subject to how the facts are reported to it (and what facts may be either purposefully or accidentally omitted by the reporter).

None of those techniques are gone into by the author; he merely indicates that he used AI, without going into what it advised him to do. The act of omitting that piece of information means - at least IMO - that the editorial itself cannot by definition make its point.

None of those techniques are gone into by the author; he merely indicates that he used AI, without going into what it advised him to do.

I will agree that - much like it has done for me with medical knowledge - AI has the power to "prep" you very well for appointments with your attorney, assuming that it is not giving you a higher-level hallucination or leading you into a knowledge blind spot, which, as amateurs in the profession, laymen may not know enough to recognize (I don't omit myself - I would at most consider myself a 'talented amateur' at law).

But entirely omitted from all this evaluation: attorneys nowadays are very conscious of a client's desire to be budget-conscious; they know they charge an arm and a leg and they will try not to, and will try to help. They're not always just out for the almighty dollar, despite the caricature. They will often know what you are looking to spend and they will work to accommodate such price range - because they want to foster client loyalty to them or to their firm, and garner a favorable impression and word-of-mout. Just as one example, as a very experienced legal admin, I have sometimes done things free (not illegally so) that might have, in old days, been done for cost by an associate. (I am not speaking of the practice of law. But attorneys in olden days might've had associates charge for administrative things that can be done freely, and with greater ease now with the presence of the Internet.)

Also, one reason why lawyers are more like surgeons than they are "general contractors" is that lawyers specialize. There are multiple fields of law expertise, much as there are multiple fields of surgery, and litigation attorneys are a particular surgical field.

In short, while I agree with some aspects of the essay - I think that there's value in allowing AI briefing to get you up to speed to be a more educated client, which itself can then save you time with an attorney, which may then translate to money saved - I think there are multiple statements within the article that are simply flawed, wrong, or don't reflect the current reality of law, and how lawyers interact with clients nowadays.

None of the above reflects any attorney-client confidential information. I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and I do not speak for (nor am I empowered to speak for) my employer.

AI Saved My Company from a 2-Year Litigation Nightmare