Tag: ai-and-law
All the articles with the tag "ai-and-law".
-
Clients Don't Pay Lawyers for Answers. They Pay for Certainty.
AI can produce a legal analysis in twenty seconds. It cannot produce the feeling of having been correctly held through an uncertain moment by someone who actually knows what they're doing. That feeling is what clients are buying.
-
Anthropic's 12 Legal Plugins Were the Headline. The 20 Connectors Were the Story.
Every article about Anthropic's Claude For Legal led with the same number: twelve plugins. The plugins are real. But the lawyers paying attention should be looking at a different number: the twenty connectors that ship alongside them. Here's why.
-
Anthropic Closed the Vertical-vs-Horizontal Question. I Should Have Seen It Coming.
I scheduled an article for June 8th admitting I couldn't decide whether lawyers should use general-purpose AI or vertical legal AI. Three days ago, Anthropic launched Claude For Legal. Here's how my view has moved—and why I should have seen it coming.
-
Judges Are Using AI Too. Here's Why That Should Worry You.
Most analysis of AI in law focuses on lawyers. But the judiciary is quietly adopting these tools too—and the consequences for how cases get decided are larger than anyone is publicly acknowledging.