Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI

433 posts

Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI banner
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI

Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI

@litigationai

Trial attorney. Helping you use AI in real cases. Reporting back honestly. Follow and supercharge your lit workflow. NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

AI Megapolis 参加日 Nisan 2026
178 フォロー中82 フォロワー
固定されたツイート
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
AI can be a great tool in the legal field, for lawyers and clients alike. But you need to be aware of its limitations and potential pitfalls. Clients: AI CANNOT replace your lawyer. Lawyers: AI CANNOT replace your brain. Use it right.
English
0
1
5
425
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
83% of attorneys now have access to AI tools. 22% trust them enough to rely on output without heavy verification. That 61-point gap is the legal profession's actual AI problem, and nobody selling a $50/month subscription is closing it. They sell access to the model. The workflow knowledge, the verification habits, the understanding of where AI fails in legal contexts—none of that ships with the product. The gap closes one of two ways: attorneys build competence through actual use and honest feedback loops, or they get sanctioned into it. The profession is currently doing both simultaneously.
English
5
5
17
2K
Daniel Levine
Daniel Levine@daniellevine·
People should be asking why Costco is entering this space in the first place.
FleetingBits@fleetingbits

some thoughts on kirkland building its own harvey 1) kirkland is spending $500m over four years in order to build its own internal ai legal tools; kirkland intends to spend $100m this year 2) i suspect that kirkland is doing this because they have told themselves that they have valuable data and because they want to appear differentiated 3) i think the first issue is that kirkland probably does not have differentiated data from other elite law firms; at least, not at the level a harvey would absorb 4) all the elite firms probably have similar internal workflow data and so long as some of them defect, that is enough to commoditize the data kirkland wants to use for its platform 5) and, to the extent that they do have different internal workflows, harvey and legora will end up representing a better version of them and this will put kirkland at a disadvantage 6) moreover, companies like kirkland will have difficulty building their internal legal platforms because they do not have experience with software development 7) and, there are both cultural and structural issues with them managing software developers, like they cannot give non-lawyers equity in the firm due to regulation 8) so, i think firms like kirkland are better off using tools like harvey and legora and then looking to focus on where their value really is now: client relationships, local knowledge (litigation, regulation) and legal r&d (novel structures, etc...) 9) anyway, this seems to me like a phenomenon that ai creates across a lot of industries, where firms that were previously vertically integrated become unbundled due to ai because part of the intelligence gets moved to the labs or otherwise gets commoditized 10) and so, a new set of companies are created whose job it is in order to provide services complementary to the labs: forward deployed like harvey and legora and data providers like mercor, surge and handshake

English
91
98
5.2K
1.4M
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
@SplinteredEsq True. Which I've never understood. But this isn't even an AI thing. I meet lawyers every day who do the bare minimum. I'm like bro, why did you even get into this profession? 🤣
English
0
0
0
80
Chris Baker
Chris Baker@SplinteredEsq·
@litigationai No, but the problem is is you don’t need to sell that knowledge gap you can get it for free the problem is the lawyers are lazy as fuck. Don’t want it.
English
1
0
0
99
Olúṣèyí Ajiboye Esq
Olúṣèyí Ajiboye Esq@Harbiola0709·
@litigationai Yeah, the advancement of technology can make you learn a lot within seconds, but having practical experience is actually the best way to have a full understanding of certain areas of law.
English
1
0
4
1.4K
Olúṣèyí Ajiboye Esq
Olúṣèyí Ajiboye Esq@Harbiola0709·
As a junior lawyer, specialization or generalization, which one is advisable?? Senior lawyers, let’s hear your thoughts.
English
32
15
177
33.7K
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
Oral argument prep: after the brief is filed, run the argument through Claude as the panel. Feed it both briefs and the relevant cases. Ask for the five hardest questions a skeptical judge would ask. Then answer each one out loud.
English
1
1
0
48
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
@AMandoSch I blame everything on AI. No client response? AI response bot didn't do it. Mail didn't get sent out? AI mail bot didn't do it. Missed a deadline? AI calendar bot screwed up. I'm starting to get a lot of pissed off clients and judges though...
English
0
0
1
13
A. Mando
A. Mando@AMandoSch·
New work tactic. Blame all immaterial mistakes on your CRM/Client Relations Manager/AI.
English
2
0
19
474
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI がリツイート
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
California's proposed amendments to Rules 5.1 and 5.3 are the ones that should concern law firm management. The amendments would require supervising attorneys to ensure that associates and staff using AI tools are doing so in compliance with the rules. A partner who signs a brief isn't insulated because an associate ran it through AI and didn't verify the output. The supervision duty extends to the AI workflow, not just the final work product. Existing supervisory responsibility applied to a new context. Codifying it means "I trusted the associate" stops being a complete answer.
English
0
1
3
205
Rob Freund
Rob Freund@RobertFreundLaw·
This might be the biggest sanction yet against a pro se litigant who misused AI: The appellant, representing herself, filed an appellate brief that "include[d] fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence, which prevent this Court from engaging in meaningful review." Court dismissed the appeal on that basis and because of other court rule violations, and "given the frivolousness of the appeal," awarded the other party "$10,000 in damages." As to the fake cases, the appellant's "citations present a much more serious and fundamental issue than poor briefing; citing nonexistent caselaw constitutes making a false statement to this Court." "There is no excuse for citing to fictitious caselaw generated by A.I. in an appellate brief." "Boatner’s submission of fictitious cases constitutes an abuse of the judicial system and represents a flagrant violation of the duties of candor owed to this Court by parties, including pro se litigants." "The utilization of A.I. does not excuse a party’s responsibility of confirming the existence of the cases cited in support of his or her arguments. Boatner, just like any party before this Court, has an ethical duty to demonstrate candor."
Rob Freund tweet media
English
16
29
133
13.8K
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI がリツイート
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
California just proposed the first AI-specific amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3—competence, communication, confidentiality, candor toward the tribunal, and supervisory responsibility—all touched. For the first time, these obligations would carry disciplinary authority instead of being advisory ethics opinions. The proposed language on competence: attorneys must "independently review, verify and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology that is used in connection with representing a client.” Other states will follow.
English
0
2
4
373
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
1/6 Here's how AI changed my discovery review workflow—specifically. Not "AI saves time." What it actually does, step by step, and where you still have to do the work yourself. 🧵
English
2
1
2
78
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
The questions aren't perfect—the model doesn't know your judge's prior decisions or your circuit's specific preoccupations. But the discipline of answering hard questions before you're standing at the podium is the point. The simulation doesn't have to be good for the preparation to work.
English
1
0
0
17
Jon Con Esq.
Jon Con Esq.@SteelToeScribe·
This is super topical since the summer programs just started in big law firms. I have been taking a few summers under my wing to teach them the secret sauce of what it takes to succeed up the ladder (if that’s their aim, of course - for some it’s just a 1-2 yr box check, and they’ll likely struggle on their way to a ‘stealth’ in that time anyway). Back as a middie I’d made a list of 10 “tenets” and 5 “attenuations” - they show up daily, to this day. My fav tenets is: “if it wasn’t ambiguous someone else would do it” - too many juniors get mad at snags. You’re the janitor of white glove mud wrestling. And not that ‘pls fix’ nonsense either (typo tyrants). You will do hard senior level shit with no real answer day one. Make the answer. Guide an outcome. My fav attenuation is: “nothing is personal, your colleagues are just better at managing docs than ppl” (doesn’t make it okay). It’s cool to take pride in your work & availablilty without surrendering your entire self esteem over to a bunch of ivory tower idiots who will forget you exist the first day of 3L. Have spine. I share b/c I care.
Dallin Drescher@SellersCounsel

Going to be extremely honest: many junior associates set expectations for themselves that nobody else actually has. The partner didn’t send the assignment at 9 PM because he expects you to work all night. It was just the first free moment he had. Stuff that hits Friday at 4 usually doesn’t need eyes until Monday. ‘No’ is an acceptable answer when someone asks for availability. Grind when you have bandwidth and it matters. But you don’t need to kill yourself over every email. Yes, there are toxic partners and firms that demand misery. Avoid them. And yes, occasional all-nighters happen. But they should be rare. In my experience, you can do exciting work with great people and still have a demanding but reasonable life.

English
3
3
124
37.4K
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI がリツイート
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
Damien Charlotin has been tracking AI hallucination incidents in legal filings across every jurisdiction. Here's what the data shows—and what it tells you about where courts are taking this. 🧵
English
1
1
0
34
Jake
Jake@2nuktuk·
@litigationai Hpw are you converting things like pdfs to usable data for the ai to analyze?
English
1
0
0
14
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI がリツイート
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI
Lawyer.exe | Trial by AI@litigationai·
Before the first client call on a new matter: run the basic facts through Claude and ask it to identify the likely causes of action, the likely defenses, the statute of limitations issues, and the threshold evidence questions. Not to make legal decisions—to show up to the intake call with a working framework instead of starting from zero. The client spent two weeks Googling before they called you. Spending twenty minutes with Claude before the call closes most of the information gap in the room.
English
0
1
0
33