USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ronald R. Rossi, Daniel J. Koevary, Jonathan L. Shapiro and Matthew B. Stein, Kasowitz LLP
GenAI drafting tools add similar value when used as starting points for work product such as discovery requests, correspondence, or routine motions. For complex disputes, they serve as research assis- tants − identifying authorities or arguments for further analysis. Common legal research platforms have also integrated GenAI, permitting lawyers to pose natural- language questions and receive synthesised summa- ries of potentially relevant authorities. These tools can accelerate the process of identifying authorities and analysing those cited by adversaries. As with drafting applications, their value lies in effi- ciency and accessibility − although they still require experienced lawyers to verify accuracy and assess the soundness of the underlying reasoning. On bal- ance and when used appropriately, GenAI tools can meaningfully reduce labour on menial tasks and allow lawyers to focus on more in-depth work. Where the technology falls short Still, GenAI’s impact should not be overstated. Its lim- its emerge quickly in complex, high-stakes disputes. These matters often turn on the interplay of facts, strategy, and persuasion − areas where technology can assist but not decide. GenAI cannot yet (and may never) grasp the practical weight of a particular fact, sense a court’s reaction, or craft the theme that binds a strategy together. It lacks the contextual awareness that makes legal reasoning more than text prediction. Even in more routine work, GenAI still requires care- ful supervision. “Hallucinated” case citations and fabricated quotes continue to appear in court filings, prompting sanctions and new disclosure rules. The hallucinations are not glitches; they reflect how GenAI systems operate − predicting plausible language rather than verifying facts. Accordingly, lawyers using these tools must verify every assertion and ensure that automation never substitutes for professional judg- ment. Professional responsibility and oversight In response, firms and courts are developing clear expectations for responsible use. Some firms set policies requiring that AI-generated work product be reviewed and verified by an attorney. Several federal
judges have issued standing orders requiring disclo- sure when AI tools contribute to filings. Some state bars have issued guidance emphasising − among other things − that confidentiality, competence, and candour obligations apply fully to AI use. These developments reflect a maturing view of GenAI: it is a tool, not a practitioner. Properly managed, it can enhance accuracy and efficiency; mismanaged, it can undermine both. The key is proper use − understand- ing where the technology adds value and that it can- not be trusted without verification. The road ahead The next phase of GenAI’s integration into litigation practice will be shaped both by advances in the tech- nology and client expectations. Corporate clients are beginning to ask how their outside counsel deploy these tools to ensure efficiency, accuracy, cost- effectiveness, and data security. Firms are respond- ing by developing internal governance policies, vet- ting approved platforms, and training attorneys to use them responsibly. In the courtroom and the office, however, the fun- damentals remain unchanged. The technology may streamline preparation and illuminate patterns in com- plex records, but it cannot decide what arguments to make, how to present them, or determine strategy. Those decisions still rely on experience, intuition, and credibility − qualities that define effective advocacy and cannot be automated. GenAI’s role in litigation is likely to continue grow- ing by evolution. New “agentic” systems − designed to plan and execute multi-step tasks with minimal prompting − may expand what these tools can handle, but even that evolution will not displace the judge- ment and strategy at the heart of litigation practice. As firms, courts and clients continue adoption, the question has shifted from whether to use these tools to how best to use them. The litigators who adapt most effectively will treat GenAI as a capable assistant requiring oversight, not as a stand-in for experienced and competent advocacy.
1212 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook