Litigators: how are you using AI?
Enthusiast
Related Posts
Hi Fishes, I've accepted offer from Accenture from their portal.. But now got new offer from EY and wants to join at EY. So how can I tell Accenture Accenture India that I'm not going to join them. Rather than not showing up on the date of joining? Can you please guide me? How do I let them know? My talent coach is not reachable
Rising Star
Additional Posts in Big Law
Mentor
BeCiAL sPoNuSeS this year??
Mentor
Coach
Mentor
Mentor
Subject Expert
Enthusiast
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Enthusiast
Context: Westlaw AI sucks, it’s worse than a 1st year though much more efficient. I haven’t found Harvey/CoCounsel helpful except to help me find things in docs. I don’t do doc review but hear AI is helpful for that. How else are you using AI?
Enthusiast
That’s a very cool application. Thanks for sharing.
I use it primarily to draft/refine emails and summarize cases. I occasionally use it to generate discrete sections of motions, but it takes so much time to prompt it and then verify/clean up its output that it hardly seems worth it. I have a client who insists that it should be cutting down our brief drafting time by at least 30%, though 🙄
I hate writing brief introductions. With a full brief, AI can draft well.
That's interesting. Totally agree that the summary of the argument/introductions are challenging to write, take time, and are generally written once the substance of the brief is finish. But, I find the amount of refining of an argument for an introduction really helps my preparation for oral argument and is persuasive to the court. I'd personally hate to give up the process of sharpening my argument to AI. I wish it was more competent in some of the more mundane parts--like populating record citations when I finish a sentence.
I haven’t found much of a use for it yet. Currently I am using it to summarize documents, compare documents, and draft/refine emails.
I don’t use it except for maybe a transcription of a hearing or deposition. It’s too inaccurate for the area of law that I practice in
Relativity's AI tool is superb for first-level analysis of high volumes of ESI. Far, far more efficient and cost-effective than having juniors or contract attorneys do it, and so long as the prompts you feed into it are sound, it does a pretty good job honing in on the issues you are interested in.
I use it to as much as I can for non-billable marketing, like prepping CLEs. I have used it to prep appellate oral argument by feeding it as filed briefing and key cases and asking AI to give me fifty questions I might hear and proposed answers. It doesn't get me all the way there but gives me a good start and gets the gears turning.
Analyzing documents, picking out references, etc. You can feed it huge PDFs of thousands of pages of trial testimony or whatever and ask to find mentions of X or Y. You can ask questions about state law and ask for authorities. You need to verify, but it can get you on track if there’s not an obviously helpful treatise or something.