AI Transforming the Legal World

Erick

Welcome to the AI Law Podcast. I am Erick Robinson, a partner at Brown Rudnick in Houston. I am Co-Chair of the firm's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Practice Group. In addition to being a patent litigator and trial lawyer, I am well-versed not only in the law of AI, but also have deep technical experience in AI and related technologies.

Erick

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast do not necessarily represent those of Brown Rudnick. This podcast is presented for informational and educational purposes only.

Erick

I am here today with gifted lawyer and AI expert Sebastian Hale. Great to have you here, Sebastian!

Sebastian Hale

It is my honor and pleasure, Erick!

Erick

So today we are taking a deep dive of how generative AI can help those of us in the legal profession. What are you thinking, Sebastian?

Sebastian Hale

The idea of AI in the legal world isn't exactly new, you know. We’ve had technology-assisted review for e-discovery for years—machine learning quietly working away in the background on some of our most convoluted legal tasks.

Erick

Right, but generative AI? Whole different ballgame. It’s not just about finding documents anymore—it’s writing, summarizing, even drafting entire legal briefs if you give it the right prompts.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. It’s as if we’ve gone from a search engine to having a, well, a junior associate who doesn’t sleep or complain about how many boxes of discovery they have to sift through.

Erick

Except this junior associate works faster. Way faster.

Sebastian Hale

And that’s partly down to the sheer computing power we’ve got today. These systems can process millions of pages faster than even the most diligent clerk could ever dream of. Combine that with advances in natural language processing—

Erick

Where they actually "get" what you’re asking, and don’t just spit out keyword matches.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. They’re delivering nuanced, context-aware results. But there’s also this, well, relentless demand in the industry. Firms, courts, in-house teams—everyone's drowning in data. They have to meet tight deadlines, clients demand cost-efficiency...and frankly, the old methods aren’t cutting it anymore.

Erick

Yeah, no one has time to manually redline contracts or dig through depositions for days on end. This is where AI, like you said, shifts from being a "nice-to-have" to a, uh, full-on necessity.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. And instead of spending hours on those mind-numbing tasks, lawyers can finally refocus their time and energy on strategies, clients, and building stronger cases.

Sebastian Hale

So if AI can handle those tedious tasks, you might wonder—does that mean it’s coming for our jobs? That’s one of the big misconceptions I’ve noticed, especially among lawyers. But really, AI isn’t about replacing us; it’s about freeing us up to focus on what truly matters.

Erick

Right, the grunt work. Let’s be honest: no one really got into law because they loved redlining fifty-page contracts or slogging through a mountain of discovery files.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Generative AI excels at those repetitive, data-heavy tasks that, well, frankly, don’t require deep legal reasoning or human empathy. It’s not here to argue a case in court—it’s not taking depositions or connecting with clients.

Erick

Yeah, because let’s face it, a robot can’t read the room. It doesn’t understand the, uh, subtle dynamics of a negotiation, right? That’s still very much the human domain.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. And where AI really shines is as a kind of legal research assistant. Imagine having something that can churn through gigabytes of case law, highlight the most relevant precedents, and even summarize arguments—in a fraction of the time it’d take a junior associate.

Erick

And without complaining about their billable hours. It’s like having an associate who never sleeps, never gets tired.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. Though, to be clear, this "associate" still needs oversight. AI can give us—ahem—a draft or summarize key points, but it doesn’t replace the human judgment required to craft strategy or apply legal reasoning to complex situations.

Erick

Right, the high-value work stays with us, the lawyers. But the AI does the heavy lifting, letting us get to the good part faster—less of the slog, more of the strategy.

Sebastian Hale

It's a collaboration, really. The AI handles the data crunching, and we, as lawyers, bring the creativity, the interpretation, the judgment. It's not about obviating the human element; it's actually enhancing it.

Erick

And freeing us up, which—let’s be real—means we get to spend more time on the tasks that actually make a difference in a case, you know?

Sebastian Hale

Quite so. It allows us to focus on the strategic side of our work. It’s about shifting the balance, letting us concentrate more on what we’re uniquely qualified to do as human professionals.

Sebastian Hale

Now, while AI is clearly a powerful collaborator, it isn't without its quirks. One of the more, let’s say, interesting challenges we’ve seen is something experts call “hallucinations.” That’s when the model confidently generates information that seems plausible but, when you look closer, just doesn’t hold up at all.

Erick

You mean, like the intern who swears they filed that case law citation but, surprise, didn’t? Yeah, I’ve been there.

Sebastian Hale

Something like that, yes. Except here, the AI isn’t intentionally misleading—it’s simply a byproduct of how these systems are trained. They work by predicting word sequences based on patterns in massive datasets. If the data has gaps or biases—or if the question isn’t clear—the model makes an educated guess. Sometimes, that's a bit too "creative."

Erick

And clients love when their legal arguments are based on "creative guesses."

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. That’s why understanding why hallucinations happen is so vital. These models don’t "know" in the traditional sense; they generate text based on probabilities, not facts. So, when they’re asked something where data is sparse, they, well, improvise.

Erick

Which, for a chatbot demo? Fine. But for a brief headed to court? That’s a no-go.

Sebastian Hale

Absolutely not. And this brings us to mitigation strategies. The first and most vital step is validation. Every AI-generated output needs rigorous human review. Facts, citations, arguments—everything has to be cross-checked. You can’t just assume the AI got it right, even if it sounds convincing.

Erick

So, basically, treat the AI like that overconfident first-year associate who thinks, I don’t know, "Roe versus Wade" is about river management law. Got it.

Sebastian Hale

Heh, yes, something like that. Another approach is to craft narrower prompts. If you’re too broad, the AI tends to drift—you ask it for a summary of antitrust law, and it might toss in something about mergers that’s not relevant at all. Clear, specific instructions help reduce that noise.

Erick

And what about locking it down to trusted sources? Like, could you train it to only pull from, say, case law databases or statutes?

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Some advanced systems allow integration with proprietary knowledge bases, ensuring the AI draws exclusively from validated content. That dramatically cuts down on hallucinations—no extraneous, made-up citations sneaking into your draft.

Erick

Good. 'Cause the last thing I need is explaining to a judge why my case law quote came from, I don’t know, a science fiction novel.

Sebastian Hale

Quite the predicament. But seriously, at its best, AI works like a junior associate—enthusiastic, productive, but in need of supervision. When reviewed properly, these tools can save time by summarizing voluminous data or highlighting trends without the risk of your professional credibility taking a hit.

Sebastian Hale

Just like ensuring AI outputs are thoroughly vetted, there’s another critical area we can’t overlook when integrating AI into legal practice: confidentiality. It’s really the cornerstone of what we do as lawyers, isn’t it? Breaching it isn’t just an ethical no-no; it’s malpractice, reputational damage—potentially catastrophic for any legal team.

Erick

Totally catastrophic. I mean, can you imagine explaining to a client that sensitive company data got leaked because your AI tool "needed it" for training? That’s...an awkward conversation.

Sebastian Hale

Quite. And that’s the crux of the issue—understanding precisely what happens to the information you feed these systems. Where is that data going? Is it stored, and if so, how securely? Is it being used to train broader AI models? These aren’t trivial questions; they’re make-or-break considerations.

Erick

Okay, so then how do legal teams—small firms, big in-house departments—actually vet these AI providers? What are they looking for?

Sebastian Hale

First and foremost, data handling policies. Any reputable provider should clearly state whether they’re using your data for training purposes. Ideally, you want assurances—contractual ones, if possible—that your data remains compartmentalized and untouched.

Erick

You mean like in an encrypted silo or something, right? Not floating around in some general AI server farm out there somewhere.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. Encryption is key—both in transit and at rest. Access controls also matter. Who can see this data? And under what circumstances? If the provider can’t spell that out, it’s a huge red flag.

Erick

Okay, so storage and access—check. What else? What should legal teams themselves be doing to stay buttoned up?

Sebastian Hale

Well, client consent is one layer. In sensitive cases, you might even have to discuss upfront whether or how AI tools will be used. Transparency here builds trust. Beyond that, there's de-identification—removing personally identifiable information before uploading anything for analysis. And internal guidelines are crucial: standardized protocols around AI use, mandatory training—

Erick

Wait, training? Law firms and training in tech—two words that rarely show up in the same sentence.

Sebastian Hale

Fair point. But it’s critical. If your team doesn’t understand the risks, or even how to craft the AI prompts properly, you’re inviting errors and potential confidentiality breaches. A little upfront training can go a long way.

Erick

Yeah, 'cause nothing screams "audit nightmare" like someone feeding unredacted witness statements into an open AI platform.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. And this is the part where properly managed AI actually holds up its end of the bargain. When configured securely, these systems can work within the same standards we expect from, say, a trusted human associate. They can analyze, summarize, and organize data rapidly—all without compromising client confidentiality.

Erick

Okay, but no matter how locked down it is, there’s still oversight needed, right? Like, even the best systems make mistakes if left unchecked.

Sebastian Hale

Of course. AI isn’t a “set-it-and-forget-it” tool. You, as the professional, remain responsible for ensuring compliance, accuracy, and discretion. Used wisely, AI can elevate our work without undermining the trust that’s, frankly, at the heart of legal practice.

Sebastian Hale

Building on that idea of responsible oversight, when we talk about generative AI in law, it’s not just this abstract, science-fiction concept. It’s already being applied across, well, practically every corner of the legal world. From litigation to compliance, the versatility is kind of staggering—but so is the need to use it wisely.

Erick

Yeah, but let’s break it down. I mean, “AI can do everything” isn’t exactly helpful unless we know where it’s actually making a difference, right?

Sebastian Hale

Fair point. Let’s start with litigation and e-discovery. Attorneys traditionally spend weeks combing through mountains of documents, looking for that, uh, crucial needle in the haystack. AI doesn’t just speed that process up—it revolutionizes it entirely. It can cluster documents by topic, highlight key passages, and even generate useful deposition outlines. Basically, it takes the grunt work off the table.

Erick

Which is huge. Anyone who's ever dealt with discovery knows the soul-crushing reality of painstakingly combing through terabytes of data. AI makes that, uh, bearable—or at least lets you finish before retirement.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. And the summarization aspect can be particularly eye-opening. Imagine being able to quickly distill key points from deposition transcripts or identify admissions buried deep in a document set. It’s like having a team of endlessly diligent paralegals working round the clock.

Erick

Without asking for coffee breaks. Perfect.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. Now, moving on to contracts—this is another area where AI shines. Drafting, reviewing, comparing versions... it’s all incredibly time-consuming. But generative AI can offer clause suggestions, flag risk areas, and even assess compliance. It’s like cutting hours off the entire process while ensuring nothing gets overlooked.

Erick

Right. And instead of slogging through boilerplate language for hours, you can focus on the important stuff: negotiation, strategy, closing deals. The fun parts of lawyering.

Sebastian Hale

Quite so. And then there’s intellectual property. Patent lawyers, for example, can use AI for prior art searches—essentially scouring patent databases to see whether an invention or idea is already out there. It’s not perfect, of course, but it can drastically cut down the time it takes to do those initial sweeps.

Erick

Plus, for folks dealing with insanely technical stuff—biopharma, advanced engineering—AI can summarize all that mumbo jumbo into something more, uh, digestible. At least enough to know where to dig deeper, right?

Sebastian Hale

Spot on. And it even extends to drafting patent applications. AI can handle the initial formatting and structure, leaving the lawyer to focus on refining claims and ensuring compliance with filing requirements. Again, it’s about lifting the admin burden and letting us apply our expertise where it matters most.

Erick

Okay, so that’s litigation, contracting, patents—what about compliance? That’s gotta be a minefield for AI, no?

Sebastian Hale

You’d think so, but it’s surprisingly useful in that domain too. In-house teams can leverage AI to monitor legislative changes, conduct audits, or flag weak spots in policies. For example, keeping corporate protocols aligned with GDPR or environmental standards is, well, a monumental task. AI streamlines it by analyzing policies and documents for inconsistencies or gaps.

Erick

And it flags those gaps instead of just letting them sit and, uh, blow up later. Smart.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Finally, let’s look at the judiciary. Judges, clerks—they’re not immune to overflowing dockets and endless documentation. AI can summarize filings, identify patterns in case law, and even help clerks prepare initial motions. The key is reducing the workload so courts can operate more efficiently.

Erick

Yeah, 'cause nothing says "justice delayed" like a judge buried under a ten-foot stack of briefs. If AI can chip away at that, it’s a win for everyone.

Sebastian Hale

Absolutely. Of course, as with any application, these tools aren’t perfect. They need oversight, validation, and, well, ethical discretion. But when used wisely, AI can enhance nearly every facet of legal practice, making the impossible workload... possible.

Sebastian Hale

If there’s one thing we know about the legal profession, it’s that skepticism toward change isn’t exactly rare—especially when it comes to technology. Even with tools like AI proving transformative, many still wrestle with the idea of moving away from tradition.

Erick

Yeah, some might call it skepticism—others would say we’re just stubborn.

Sebastian Hale

Fair enough. But the truth is, when it comes to implementing generative AI, a structured approach can, well, unravel a lot of that resistance. Start slow, small pilots, low-stakes environments...

Erick

You mean, don’t let the junior associate loose on, I don’t know, your billion-dollar merger deal draft?

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Identify processes that consume time but carry minimal risk. Things like summarizing industry legal updates or redlining contracts where the stakes are lower. These pilot projects ease teams into the possibilities without jeopardizing, shall we say, critical client work.

Erick

Okay, so low-risk is the safe launchpad. But let’s talk about the elephant in the room—lawyers and training on new tech.

Sebastian Hale

Ah, yes. Training. Much maligned but undeniably essential. You see, even the most advanced AI tools require human operators who know how to ask the right questions, interpret outputs, and, above all, provide oversight. It’s not just about knowing what buttons to press; it’s understanding what the system can and can’t do.

Erick

So, teach them how to cross-examine the AI, basically—make sure the outputs actually make sense?

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. Crafting precise prompts, identifying errors—it’s a skillset unto itself, almost akin to good legal writing. Firms that skip this step... well, they’re setting themselves up for disappointment, if not serious blunders.

Erick

Alright, but let’s be real here—training aside, most lawyers aren’t just gonna dive into this headfirst. Isn’t the reluctance tied, at least in part, to fear? Fear of something going spectacularly wrong?

Sebastian Hale

Very much so. And that’s why establishing internal best practices from the get-go is critical. Frameworks that spell out permissible use cases, privacy safeguards, validation protocols—these aren’t just nice-to-haves; they’re non-negotiable guardrails.

Erick

And I’m guessing a "don’t-freak-out" checklist wouldn’t hurt either, huh?

Sebastian Hale

Quite. A well-defined set of guidelines reassures teams that the AI isn’t here to replace their judgment or expertise. And transparency helps too. Folks need to see AI as an ally, not an unpredictable threat.

Erick

Okay, so structured pilots, solid grounding in training, clear rules—sounds manageable. But how do you get skeptics to, I don’t know, stop clutching their well-worn legal pads and really engage?

Sebastian Hale

By demonstrating value early on. The "aha" moments come when lawyers realize this isn’t relinquishing control—it’s regaining time. Showcasing how AI trims hours off mundane tasks allows teams to, well, concentrate on the intellectual heavy-lifting they actually enjoy. It’s about making the work more human, not less.

Erick

So, basically, you take away the legal drudgery and get back to the good stuff? Yeah, I could see people coming around to that.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. It just takes a bit of patience, a willingness to learn, and, perhaps, a touch of innovation to see where these tools fit best in the legal ecosystem. Once the barriers drop, the opportunities multiply.

Sebastian Hale

Now, once those barriers start to drop and opportunities emerge, there’s another crucial aspect we can’t ignore: ethics. It’s the backbone of our profession—values like competence, confidentiality, and candor are sacrosanct. And when AI enters the picture, it challenges us to uphold those standards in new ways.

Erick

You mean all the areas where "messing it up" could sink your entire career?

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Let’s start with competence. Legal professionals are increasingly required to stay technologically competent, and that extends to understanding the tools we use—AI included. If you don’t grasp its limitations, nuances, or inherent flaws, you’re navigating a minefield.

Erick

So, basically, don’t treat it as a magic wand? Got it.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. You need to understand how it arrives at certain outputs, why it might generate errors, and where human oversight is critical. You could almost say AI’s risks aren’t purely technological—many are born out of how we misuse or misunderstand it.

Erick

Right. Like trusting it blindly to draft a deposition or something—bad idea.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. And then there’s confidentiality—a minefield in its own right. Breaches here can lead to ethical violations, loss of trust, and, frankly, career-ruining consequences. Any lawyer using AI must know exactly what happens to client data shared with these systems.

Erick

Yeah, because nothing puts a client at ease like, "Your sensitive files might be on some AI training server halfway across the world."

Sebastian Hale

Precisely why data policies and encryption strategies become critical. Legal teams need assurances—contractual ones, if possible—that client information isn’t being retained inappropriately or used for model training. Without that, you’re taking a huge ethical gamble.

Erick

Okay, so don’t gamble with client data—what’s next?

Sebastian Hale

Avoiding unauthorized practice of law. This one might not seem obvious, but if AI drafts something incorrectly and you don’t catch it, are you still delivering competent, professional advice? The line between automation and accountability gets murky if lawyers don’t take ownership of the AI’s outputs.

Erick

Wait—you mean you can’t just hit "generate" and call it done? Shocking.

Sebastian Hale

Hardly shocking, but certainly worrying. AI tools are utilities, not substitutes for legal judgment. You remain responsible for every word submitted in court or sent to a client. It requires diligence, yes, but also candor—to admit what AI contributed and verify everything against primary, reliable sources.

Erick

And if you don’t? Pretty sure judges love calling out bogus citations in open court.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely why maintaining accuracy at all costs is essential. The duty of candor demands lawyers present truthful, verified statements. And AI, left unchecked, could undermine that if not properly reviewed.

Erick

So humans are still the safety net. AI might draft, summarize, even suggest—but we’ve gotta validate every detail, right?

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. It’s not a shortcut to bypass responsibility. It’s an enhancement—but one that requires careful oversight to actually support ethical and professional obligations. Anything less compromises the integrity of legal practice.

Sebastian Hale

Before we dive into our next topic, let’s address a big hurdle—misunderstandings about AI. Generative AI, in particular, has sparked plenty of myths, and it’s critical we sort fact from fiction to responsibly leverage these tools.

Erick

Oh yeah. My favorite is "AI’s gonna take all our jobs." Like this is some dystopian "Robots Ate My Career" nightmare waiting to happen.

Sebastian Hale

Yes, that’s the big one, isn’t it? And, well, it’s understandably unnerving. But the truth is, AI isn’t poised to replace lawyers—it’s designed to enhance our capabilities. Think of it more like the ideal junior associate who handles the repetitive admin work so we can focus on higher-level strategy and client care.

Erick

Right. So instead of grinding through mountain-sized stacks of disclosures, we actually get to, I don’t know, be lawyers.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. AI thrives in areas that require pattern recognition and data processing, not empathy or nuanced reasoning. Those play to our human strengths, and frankly, the profession would crumble without them. AI isn’t here to take our cases to trial.

Erick

Or charm a client over lunch. So myth: busted. AI’s not stealing our thunder. What’s next?

Sebastian Hale

Ah, the myth that AI outputs are absolute—either always flawless or entirely unreliable. Neither extreme is true. Generative AI operates based on patterns and probabilities within training data, which means, well, it’s not infallible. But it’s also not some unpredictable wildcard. It’s about how we use it.

Erick

So, kinda like that friend who’s… mostly right but occasionally throws out the wildest nonsense, and you gotta double-check anyway?

Sebastian Hale

That’s a rather apt analogy, actually. What distinguishes successful AI application is rigorous oversight. Validate citations, vet arguments—treat it like an eager but untested intern. Leave no assertion unchecked.

Erick

Yeah, pretty sure dropping a random AI-generated case law into your brief isn’t gonna win over any judges. Moral of the story? Always vet the work.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. It’s about leveraging the tool wisely—allowing it to enhance efficiency but never relinquishing professional accountability. Which brings me neatly—

Erick

—To the myth about data privacy. Oh, good one.

Sebastian Hale

Yes, a particularly sticky topic. There’s this misconception that any information input into an AI system is automatically public. But that depends entirely on the platform. Industry-grade systems often encrypt user data and segment it to prevent exposure. Yet, lawyers must be meticulous in choosing the right tools—vetting providers, ensuring compliance with strict data security standards.

Erick

So, no feeding sensitive deposition transcripts into some sketchy free app, huh?

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. Confidentiality is paramount. Using AI responsibly means understanding its capabilities and limitations—mitigating risks, verifying outputs, and, most of all, upholding the bedrock principles of our profession.

Sebastian Hale

And speaking of upholding those core principles, it’s worth stepping back for a moment. While we’ve spent time debunking myths and highlighting AI’s impressive capabilities, let’s not lose sight of what remains uniquely ours as human lawyers.

Erick

Right. It’s like you said earlier—AI’s good at crunching data, sure. But it’s not exactly known for its bedside manner, is it?

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. AI doesn’t empathize, it doesn’t grasp the nuances of moral arguments, nor does it adapt to the intricacies of human behavior in a courtroom or a boardroom. Those qualities—empathy, creativity, judgment—are uniquely human. And, if anything, they become all the more vital in the context of AI-assisted work.

Erick

Yeah, because a machine can’t tailor advice to a client’s goals. It’s not sitting there thinking, "Is this the best move for their business… or their marriage?"

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Clients look to us not just for legal knowledge but for understanding and guidance—things that extend well beyond the black-and-white confines of compliance. Another example: judges expect arguments that are thoughtful, ethical, even emotional—not just procedurally correct. AI might give you the skeleton of an argument, but it takes a lawyer to breathe life into it.

Erick

And that’s where the magic happens, right? It’s like... framing a case. Sure, the facts and laws matter—obviously—but the heart of it? That’s human work.

Sebastian Hale

Exactly. AI simply accelerates the groundwork. It can scan millions of documents in seconds, highlight trends, summarize caseloads—but that’s just data. As lawyers, we’re the ones making the judgment calls, weighing risks, capturing nuance.

Erick

Yeah, like deciding how to, y’know, reconcile cold statutes with real human impact. That’s not something you program into an algorithm. You can’t.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. And that’s why AI is an ally rather than a replacement. The synergy arises when it prepares the factual foundation, laying the groundwork for us to innovate, strategize, and deliver ethical, client-focused solutions. That collaboration allows us to do what we do best—concentrate on the art of lawyering.

Erick

The art of lawyering, huh? I like that. So, AI handles the grunt work, we handle... the soul of it? I kinda prefer it that way.

Sebastian Hale

As do I. It’s a balance—a partnership. And when used correctly, it not only makes us more efficient but—dare I say—better lawyers altogether.

Sebastian Hale

You know, Erick, as we reflect on how AI complements what we do, it’s clear this isn’t just some passing trend. Generative AI represents a real shift in how we practice law—but it’s up to us to wield it with care and purpose.

Erick

Definitely. AI’s not about upending everything we know—it’s about giving us the right tools to handle the tidal wave of data and complexity coming at us. Let’s face it, without that, we’d all drown.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. From early-stage research to drafting meticulous briefs, AI makes it possible to navigate that deluge with efficiency. But—and really, this is the key—it remains just that: a tool. An incredibly powerful one, yes, but still subordinate to our human judgment and ethics.

Erick

Right. It’s like having the world’s most tireless assistant who never sleeps... still, someone’s gotta keep an eye on them or they’ll make mistakes faster than we can fix them.

Sebastian Hale

Indeed. Lawyers bring something AI simply cannot replicate: the strategic foresight, empathy for client dilemmas, and deep understanding of the human context behind every legal decision. Without that, the data is just, well, data—facts without meaning.

Erick

And the meaning part, the judgment calls, crafting an argument that, I dunno, resonates with a jury or a judge—that’s still squarely in our court.

Sebastian Hale

Absolutely. What AI does is free us from the drudgery of sifting through endless paperwork and allow us to focus on the art of lawyering. It gives us the bandwidth to advocate with clarity, build compelling cases, and, most importantly, connect with our clients.

Erick

So, basically, the secret sauce hasn’t changed—everything rests on human expertise. AI just gets us to the good part faster.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. And it’s not only about becoming faster—it's about becoming better. By embracing AI responsibly, we can expand access to justice, enhance representation quality, and tackle legal challenges with greater insight and creativity.

Erick

So the takeaway is pretty simple: Don’t fear AI. Test it, refine it, and most importantly, make it work for you, not the other way around.

Sebastian Hale

Precisely. Whether you're a litigator, in-house counsel, inventor, or judge, there really is a seat at the table for everyone in shaping this transformation. The responsibility—and the opportunity—to define how these tools fit into our practice lies with us.

Erick

Alright, Sebastian, I think we’ve managed to navigate the pros, the pitfalls—and maybe even the paranoia—around AI in law. Quite the journey.

Sebastian Hale

Quite so. And on that note, I suppose this is the perfect place to draw our discussion to a close. To our listeners, thank you for joining us as we explored this fascinating frontier of law and technology. Until next time, stay thoughtful, stay innovative, and, most importantly, stay human.

Erick

Thanks for joining us! So long until the next episode, y'all!