This is a good a time as any to talk about artificial intelligence. In four words: I don’t like it. I am a technophobe. I spent more than 40 years in a litigation practice in the Toronto area, and given the rapid technological advances, I can easily say I’m happy I retired. I actually practiced in the days where we used typewriters, carbon paper and liquid Wite-Out. I started in 1974 B.C. (Before Computers), which qualifies me sufficiently to comment on the subject of AI. I don’t even like Google.
According to the Thomson Reuters 2022 State of U.S. Small Law Firms report, 22% of law firms admit that “differentiating your firm from your competition” is one of the top three goals or priorities for their practices. The report also indicates that 50% of firms find “challenges acquiring new client business” a moderate challenge, and 22% see it as a significant one. At the same time, almost three-quarters of the firms feel that the most competition comes from other law firms of similar size.
My regular readers will recognize that it’s been a few weeks since I shared a new column. But it’s not without good reason. First, I’ve had jury trials scheduled back to back. I secured favorable results, but the process I go through for trial prep doesn’t leave much room for anything outside of that preparation. So when I have multiple trials set within a month, I have to pull away from other endeavors and really dig in.
Although they did not receive the headlines of the most high-profile decisions of the October Term 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important cases concerning the law of the workplace. One involved the duty of employers to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices. The other concerned when a union can be held liable for the economic consequences of a strike. Each is likely to engender a great deal of litigation.
Tom Forsythe, a Utah photographer, created dozens of images depicting nude Barbie dolls posed with kitchen appliances. His “Food Chain Barbie” series included “Malted Barbie,” showing Barbie placed on a vintage Hamilton Beach malt machine. Another, which Forsythe titled “Barbie Enchiladas,” showed four Barbies in a lit oven wrapped in tortillas and covered with salsa in a casserole dish.
Unless you’re hiding under a rock, you’ve undoubtedly heard about generative AI tools like ChatGPT. The potential efficiency gains these tools offer legal professionals are mind-boggling—and possibly career-changing. If predictions are correct, many aspects of legal work will be impacted by generative AI, and some functions may even be replaced in the years to come.
Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Connie Brenton and Jeff Franke, the founders of LegalOps.com, a membership community providing legal operations and other professionals with resources and events, including an inaugural conference in October.
Is ignorance often bliss for laypeople having contact with the legal system? I have noticed that nonlawyers enjoy a much more relaxed attitude with the judicial environment than we lawyers do. We get uptight, bending over to display reverence while the laypeople have no such qualms, doing what comes naturally, expressing themselves with complete candor.
On Sunday, some of the world’s greatest bicyclists will cross the finish line of the Tour de France. The grueling competition, covering 2,100 miles over three weeks, will end on Paris’ Avenue des Champs-Élysées. The cyclists will have a lot to contend with as they race on the city’s famed street. But lucky for them, that won’t include motorists.
Two trends are dominating the world of AI: One is the rapid adoption of generative AI systems like ChatGPT, Bard and many others. The other hand is the growing legal requirements for AI audits, such as auditing mandates in New York City, which requires audits of AI systems used in the employment context, proposed laws at the state and federal levels in the US, as well as the EU AI Act.
