What actually goes wrong when Australian firms put AI into legal work, and what to do about it. New writing every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
A research task that used to fill an afternoon now takes ten minutes, and the six minute unit does not know what to do about it. Here is how Australian firms are actually pricing the gap.
Read the articleThe demo always works. Here are the questions that separate a legal AI tool you can rely on from one that will quietly cost you a Friday afternoon.
Read the articleTwo AI tools can give you the same confident paragraph of legal analysis, and only one of them ever looked at the law. The difference is retrieval versus recall.
Read the articleMost firm AI policies fail because they were written for the regulator instead of the person drafting at 6pm. Here is how to write one that survives contact with real practice.
Read the articleStripping names and tax file numbers is the easy half. The occupation, the suburb, the date and the fact pattern are what actually identify your client.
Read the articleA demo is a controlled experiment on a solved question, your matter is neither, and the gap between them is predictable enough to test for before you sign.
Read the articlePrivilege protects confidential communications, so the question is not whether you meant to share the brief, but whether pasting it into a chatbot was consistent with keeping it confidential.
Read the articleYour firm probably has no approved AI tool and plenty of AI use anyway. Here is what that costs you, and how to bring it into the open.
Read the articleAustralian courts have stopped treating fabricated citations as an embarrassing slip. Indemnity costs have been ordered. Here is why the usual fix does not work.
Read the articleThe per-seat quote is the smallest number in a legal AI deal, and the research subscription underneath is usually the one that decides whether the maths works.
Read the article