This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
When it launched, I questioned in an Above the Law column whether it was a case of Clearspire déjà vu, recalling the demise of the strikingly similar dual-entity firm Clearspire, which opened in 2010 and shut down four years later. ROSS was ahead of its time in striving to use artificial intelligence to empower legalresearch.
Thomson Reuters announced that it had entered into an agreement to acquire Casetext, a legalresearch software company, for the notable price of $650 million. For the past decade, Casetext has provided a legalresearch platform grounded in AI technology.
Since 2010, the nonprofit Free Law Project has been working to make the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive using technology, data and advocacy. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.
The Council opined that lawyers must carefully vet GAI providers to ensure confidential client information is protected, just as they are required to do when “providing confidential information to a third-party software program (practicemanagement, cloud storage, etc.)” Client consent was also addressed.
Nevertheless, the impact on the practice of law overall was significant. Legal professionals continued to learn about and experiment with generative AI for many tasks, including legalresearch, document drafting and editing, brainstorming, and more.
Of course, this pattern started long before I entered the world of legal technology. PCs, faxes, the internet, online legalresearch, and email were met with wariness, skepticism, and sometimes even outrage. Lawyers have always been suspicious of technology.
From legalresearch and contract drafting to law practicemanagement and document editing, GAI is everywhere, and avoiding it is no longer an option. This is especially so now that legal ethics committees across the country are rising to the challenge and issuing GAI guidance.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content