eDiscovery

In today’s litigation and investigation landscape, data volumes and communication channels continue to multiply. From emails and chat platforms to mobile data and collaboration tools, legal teams face an overwhelming challenge: identifying what matters most, as early as possible. The sooner counsel can assess case merit and key issues, the better equipped they are to shape strategy, evaluate risk, and control costs.

That’s where artificial intelligence (AI) in investigations and eDiscovery review comes in.

Early Case Assessment: Finding the Signal in the Noise

Traditional early case assessment (ECA) often required broad culling strategies, search term testing, and manual review of sample sets. While useful, those methods can be time-consuming and costly, especially when data sets are massive.

AI-driven review tools like generative AI-powered analysis, allow teams to:

• Quickly surface key evidence: AI learns from reviewer input, identifying documents most likely to be relevant far faster than linear review.
• Spot patterns and themes: Similar to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and other workflows, AI can cluster related documents, highlight communication spikes, and uncover custodians or topics of interest that may not appear in keyword lists. AI is now the fastest way to organize and find patterns in your data, much more efficiently and effectively than other methods.
• Assess case merit earlier: With faster access to the “hot” documents, legal teams can make informed decisions on settlement, litigation strategy, or resource allocation at the outset.

Cutting Downstream Review Costs

The benefits of AI extend well beyond ECA. By embedding AI throughout the review workflow, organizations can dramatically reduce downstream costs, which often make up the largest portion of discovery spend.

• Smarter prioritization: AI identifies relevant material faster, ensuring that reviewers spend time where it matters most and can categorize data by issues or topics.
• Consistent coding: AI maintains coding consistency across large reviewer teams, across every issue, by suggesting categorizations based on your specific instruction. It applies that instruction, consistently across every document, every time.
• Eliminating redundancies: AI can detect near-duplicates, email threading, and conversation reconstruction, allowing reviewers to avoid re-reading similar documents.
• Reducing review volumes: Accurately identifying irrelevant material and excluding those up-front results in fewer documents remaining in the costly final stages of review. Lower volumes equal lower costs.

Building Confidence with Defensibility

One of the biggest questions around AI in eDiscovery has always been defensibility. Many of the protocols for AI review are identical to those for TAR related projects and are already familiar to those in litigation. Documented protocols, validation sampling, and transparent reporting ensure that AI-powered review stands up to scrutiny while driving efficiency. Additional features like document summarization and relevancy explanation help confirm each individual coding classification.

A Smarter Path Forward

For legal teams balancing speed, accuracy, and cost, AI is no longer optional it’s becoming essential for cases of ALL sizes. Leveraging AI during review not only accelerates the path to critical evidence and early case insight, but also dramatically reduces the burden of downstream review.

The result?

• Faster decisions on case strategy.
• Lower overall discovery costs.
• Greater confidence in outcomes.

In an era of ever-expanding data, those who integrate AI into their review workflows will be best positioned to gain the competitive advantage in litigation and investigations and isn’t limited to large cases as the economics of the technology and services align with cases of all sizes.

Legal teams today face increasingly complex data from emails and documents to mobile and collaboration platforms. While many vendors offer all-in-one eDiscovery solutions, these often sacrifice flexibility and performance for convenience.

That’s where CloudNine and eDiscovery AI stand out.

CloudNine delivers fast, scalable, and defensible review and production across diverse data types. eDiscovery AI brings cutting-edge analytics and AI-powered Early Case Assessment (ECA), helping teams gain clarity faster and with greater accuracy.

Together, we offer:

• Specialized excellence at each stage of the eDiscovery process
• Flexible workflows that adapt to your case needs
• Cost efficiency by paying only for what you use
• Scalability to handle data growth without overpaying
• Future-readiness with faster innovation and support for emerging data types

Instead of being locked into a rigid platform, legal teams get the freedom to choose, integrate, and evolve.

Want to see how this partnership transforms your eDiscovery outcomes? Read the full article from eDiscovery AI:

Why CloudNine and eDiscovery AI Deliver Better ECA, Analysis, Review and Production than “All-in-One” Platforms

Masters Conference: Philadelphia, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

The 2025 Masters Conference in Philadelphia kicked off with a powerhouse panel tackling one of the most anticipated topics in the industry: “The State of eDiscovery: Case Law and Hot Topics.” Moderated by Nicole Marie Gill of CODISCOVR, the session brought together thought leaders Nicholas Berenato (CODISCOVR), Doug Austin (eDiscovery Today), and Jerry Bui (Purpose Legal) to explore recent case law shaping discovery practice and emerging trends redefining how organizations manage modern data. 

From possession, custody, and control disputes to the challenges of deepfake evidence and AI-generated content, the discussion offered a timely look at how courts and practitioners are adapting to rapid technological change. 

Possession, Custody, and Control: The Continuing Challenge 

Several recent rulings highlighted the nuances of control over electronically stored information (ESI), especially as new data types proliferate. 

• Vaughn v. Solera Holdings addressed the discoverability of Slack messages. Because the company’s Slack configuration lacked an export license, the court ruled that Solera wasn’t obligated to produce those messages. 

• Bui noted that this decision underscores the need for litigation-ready platform configurations, adding that he was surprised by the outcome. 

• Austin observed that the requesting party missed an opportunity to argue the opposing side’s capability to obtain that data. 

• In Allergan Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, a dispute over mobile device data raised questions about possession and control in a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) environment. 

• Berenato emphasized that organizations should explicitly address collection rights in their BYOD policies while respecting employee privacy. 

• Austin added that corporations are increasingly avoiding mobile device discovery which is a trend he expects to continue as many corporate communications are being advised in policies to avoid such communications via text or mobile chat apps that are non-sanctioned by the organization. 

Hyperlinked Files, Attachments, and Accessibility 

Cases such as Hubbard v. Crow and Young v. Salesforce, Inc. highlighted the growing complexity around hyperlinked documents and data accessibility. 

In Hubbard, the plaintiffs were sanctioned when they couldn’t produce a four-minute segment of a podcast linked via a broken hyperlink. 

• Bui pointed out that many organizations rely on platforms that maintain content access, and hyperlinks should ideally lead to the underlying documents. 

• Austin noted the importance of data archiving practices that preserve contemporaneous versions, including metadata that shows who edited what, and when. 

ESI Protocols and Judicial Oversight 

In Hall v. Warren, when the parties couldn’t agree on ESI protocols, the judge imposed one instead. The panel agreed that this case reinforces the need for collaboration and early agreement on discovery protocols to avoid court intervention. 

Deepfakes: The Next Frontier of Evidentiary Risk 

A standout discussion centered on Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield Inc., where much of the evidence turned out to be deepfake video content. 

• Bui described how poor lip-syncing and mismatched audio made the deepfakes obvious this time. But he cautioned that synthetic media is improving quickly, and future cases may be far harder to detect and require experts to help validate. 

Emerging Technologies and the Information Governance Connection 

Turning to the “left side” of the EDRM, Gill asked how emerging technologies are influencing information governance (IG) and discovery readiness. 

• Berenato stressed the need for AI frameworks, governance training, and data minimization strategies to manage risk. 

• Bui highlighted the value of preservation-in-place strategies and the importance of involving corporate IT early, leveraging tools like Microsoft 365 and Purview to make IG data more searchable. 

• Austin cautioned that as data organization shifts away from solely custodians, in-place preservation can become problematic, expanding the scope of legal holds. 

Chat, Collaboration Apps, and Generative AI Data 

When the conversation turned to Slack, Teams, and AI-enabled platforms, Bui noted the emergence of a “third category” that is AI-generated data created by digital agents, such as Microsoft Co-Pilot.
He suggested that metadata models may need to evolve to include a new “author” field identifying AI agents. 

Austin added that while technology isn’t perfect, consistent processes and defensible procedures remain key to managing risk as AI becomes embedded in workflows. 

Strategies for Cost, Risk, and Compliance 

Across the panel, a common theme emerged: less data equals less risk. 

• Berenato urged organizations to minimize retained data to only what’s necessary for business or legal reasons. 

• Bui noted that Microsoft 365’s labeling and categorization features can simplify IG planning and retention. 

What’s Next for eDiscovery? 

Looking ahead, the panelists agreed that privacy, AI, and cross-border data will drive the next phase of eDiscovery transformation. 

• Berenato predicted that diverging state privacy laws will complicate compliance but noted that technology is evolving to keep pace. 

• Bui highlighted ongoing tensions between privacy and forensic collection, especially in global matters. 

• Austin forecast that linear review is sunsetting faster than expected as AI accelerates review workflows. He also referenced the upcoming EDRM 2.0 model, which aims to modernize frameworks for modern data types. 

• Bui closed by reminding practitioners that the pace of change demands continuous learning, as data types, threats, and technologies evolve faster than ever before. 

Key Takeaways 

From Slack messages and mobile data to deepfakes and generative AI, today’s eDiscovery landscape is expanding beyond the traditional boundaries of ESI. This session underscored that litigation readiness now depends on proactive governance, defensible processes, and a firm grasp of emerging technologies. 

As Austin aptly summarized: “We’re in a modern data era and the types of data we haven’t even anticipated yet will soon be part of discovery.” 

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

At the 2025 Masters Conference in New York City, one panel dug deep into one of the most pressing issues in modern litigation and investigations: mobile data overload. In the session titled “The Mobile Data Deluge: How to Tackle it for eDiscovery,” a powerhouse panel of experts from Cellebrite, CloudNine, and Sandline Global shared strategies for managing the growing complexity of data in digital investigations and legal discovery.

Panelists:

• Eric Seggebruch, Account Executive, Cellebrite Enterprise Solutions
• Rick Clark, VP of Strategic Partnerships and Marketing, CloudNine
• Rob Fried, SVP, Forensics & Investigation, Sandline Global
• Andy Jacobs, Solutions Engineer, Cellebrite Enterprise Solutions

Together, they brought a mix of field expertise and technical insight, offering a roadmap for legal teams grappling with the explosion of mobile and messaging data.

Data is Everywhere And It’s Getting Heavier

The numbers tell the story:

• 97% of eDiscovery cases now include at least one mobile device
• The average investigation involves 275 GB of data
• Many cases start with at least five custodians
• Growing use of social media, messaging apps, and BYOD environments further expands the digital evidence footprint

The trend is clear: mobile data isn’t just part of an investigation; it’s often the core of the case.

The Tangled Web of Mobile Messaging

Gone are the days of simple SMS and email discovery. Today’s legal teams must sift through a complex web of communications from apps like:

• WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Viber, Wire
• iOS and Android devices
• Cloud storage platforms
• Enterprise messaging apps like Slack and Teams

Andy Jacobs emphasized the need to understand the types of collections available from logical and advanced logical to full file system acquisitions and what each can reveal. “It may be not just about extracting messages,” he explained. “It’s about finding deleted data, encryption keys, application metadata, and cross-platform context.”

Getting to the Truth with Smart Tools

The panel encouraged a toolkit mindset which is one that equips legal professionals with versatile options to handle diverse devices and apps.

Key insights included:

• Full file system collections can uncover data missed by surface-level scans
• Database and keychain access is essential for encrypted apps
• Automation can reduce examination time without compromising defensibility
• Parsed and unparsed data review enables deeper understanding of how, when, and where communications occurred

Rick Clark emphasized the importance of integrating mobile data into the broader review ecosystem, noting that tools like CloudNine support a seamless flow from mobile collection to hosted review and analytics.

Modern Challenges Require Modern Collaboration

Rob Fried reminded attendees that no single approach works for every matter. “You need to meet your custodians where they are,” he said, pointing to the importance of hybrid collection capabilities that include cloud-based platforms, remote devices, and even deleted or hidden data.

Whether the investigation is rooted in financial fraud, corporate disputes, or regulatory audits, success requires a balance of technical skill, strategic thinking, and client communication.

Revolutionizing eDiscovery Workflows

The session concluded with a call to reimagine the traditional eDiscovery model:

1. Mobile Device Collection – Go beyond email and docs; get the full story
2. Seamless Processing – Automate and standardize for speed and accuracy
3. Streamlined Review – Centralize diverse data types into a unified platform
4. Powerful Insights – Use visual analytics and filtering to spotlight what matters

This modern workflow not only reduces time to resolution, but also enhances transparency, compliance, and defensibility in court.

Final Thoughts: Embrace the Deluge, Don’t Drown in It

The explosion of mobile data in legal matters isn’t a crisis, it’s an opportunity. With the right tools, strategies, and collaboration between forensic experts and legal teams, organizations can cut through the noise, focus on what matters, and tell the real story behind the data.

As Eric Seggebruch said during the panel, “It’s not just about collecting data anymore, it’s about collecting the right data, in the right way, and delivering it in time to make a difference.”

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

At The Masters Conference NYC, held July 22–23, 2025, legal professionals, investigators, and technologists gathered at Morgan Lewis to share not only the promise of AI but also its limitations. One standout session, “From the Frontlines of Resolving Disputes: Bringing the Right Combination of AI (and Not AI) Tools,” delivered just that: real-world stories from financial disputes, fraud investigations, and litigation matters where the right mix of human expertise and tech-savvy strategy made all the difference.

Moderated by seasoned veterans with experience discussing AI with clients, the panel featured:

• Mike Gaudet – Managing Director, J.S. Held
• Ken Feinstein – Senior Managing Director, J.S. Held
• Arnold Blair – Discovery Counsel, MoloLamken
• David Carney – Partner, Robinson+Cole

Their message was clear: there is no silver bullet to addressing eDiscovery issues.  Success often comes from striking a balanced approach between traditional methods and modern tools, including AI-powered tools

The Data Have Changed. Have You?

“Five years ago, the conversation was: Should we get the phones and chats? Now it’s: We always get the phones and chats,” said Mike Gaudet, summarizing the evolution of data sources in disputes.

Arnold Blair noted that many still forget that short message communications, including texts and messaging apps are discoverable, they  often reveal more candid insights than formal emails. “People are more cavalier in what they say, and that makes it a goldmine for investigators if you can afford to get to it.” The cost and time required to sift through hours of “24-hour document” style reviews have created new pressure on teams to be smarter in how they collect and analyze modern communications.

Ken Feinstein emphasized that while the foundational steps of discovery (identification, collection, review) have not changed, how we interact with the data has. “Visualization tools and AI-assisted platforms now help teams make sense of communication patterns, transaction timelines, and relationships across structured and unstructured data.”

AI Is a Tool. Not the Answer

Throughout the session, panelists reiterated: AI should augment human decision-making, not replace it.

David Carney offered a reality check for those eager to deploy emerging tech: “It starts with the client. What’s their comfort level with innovation? Some are eager to experiment; others are skeptical, especially with riskier tech like generative AI.” He cited “hallucinations” in legal research which is false or fabricated cases from tools like ChatGPT as a cautionary tale. Validation, he stressed, must be baked into every AI-enabled workflow.

Arnold Blair added that the type of case should be a factor to consider what technology to use . A construction litigation case doesn’t need the same toolkit as a high-profile healthcare fraud matter. Flexibility and creativity are essential.

Navigating the Tech Landscape: Practical Considerations

Choosing the right approach means balancing multiple factors:

• Suitability and defensibility of the technology
• Client comfort level with AI or advanced platforms
• Timeline and budget constraints
• Risks related to data privacy, accuracy, and trust
• Ongoing need for human oversight

Carney described implementing some AI tools, particularly those that help with data interaction and visualization, as a way to “dip your toe in the water.”. These tools create a technology-assisted, human-led review model, helping teams get to the truth faster and with better precision.

The Role of AI in Investigations and Disputes

Ken Feinstein focused on one of AI’s most valuable applications: normalizing semi-structured data into analyzable formats. When messages, emails, transactions, and timelines are layered into a cohesive dataset, patterns emerge and stories are revealed.

“Every matter is different,” Feinstein said, “so your approach needs to be innovative and case-specific.” He encouraged professionals to explore hybrid models and layered approaches, where AI enhances, but doesn’t overtake, traditional methodologies.

Mike Gaudet added that the future lies in layered AI that adapts to complex cases with real-time inputs and cross-data references. In litigation involving healthcare mergers or construction disputes, layered approaches allow investigators to correlate internal messages with financial triggers, project delays, or compliance gaps.

Trends on the Horizon

The panel also spotlighted key litigation technology trends:

• Technology is moving further upstream – directly behind the client’s firewall
• Faster adoption rates as AI becomes part of broader corporate strategies
• A surge in irrelevant data means culling tools must evolve rapidly
• Data reviewed all together as a stream, not just in siloed document batches
• Human focus is shifting to more strategic and interpretive tasks

According to Carney, clients are warming up to these changes especially when a previous success story or proof of concept is available. “If we’ve used it before in a similar case and it worked, that helps get buy-in.”

Conclusion: The Truth Takes a Team; Both Human and Machine

In the end, this session from The Masters Conference reminded attendees that there’s no shortcut to the truth in legal disputes. AI and advanced tools are incredibly powerful allies, but they’re not miracle workers. Thoughtful professionals, strategic planning, and contextual judgment remain irreplaceable.

Every case demands its own approach. Sometimes that means deploying cutting-edge AI tools. Other times, it’s about asking the right questions, using visualization platforms, and staying grounded in defensible, client-focused strategies.

Because whether it’s AI, chat messages, financial records, or family law disputes, the mission remains the same: Find the truth. Tell the story. Defend the process.

Masters Conference: NYC, 2025 |  Article by Rick Clark

On July 22–23, 2025, The Masters Conference returned to New York City with a bold theme: “Welcome to the Masters 2035.” Hosted at the offices of Morgan Lewis, this two-day event gathered legal professionals, technologists, investigators, and industry thought leaders to explore how emerging technologies and workplace changes will reshape eDiscovery, investigations, and information governance over the next decade.

Forecasting the Legal Landscape of 2035

The session “Welcome to the Masters 2035” sponsored by Morgan Lewis, featured a lively and forward-thinking panel:

• Elizabeth Marie Gary – Sr. Associate, eData Practice Group, Morgan Lewis
• Bansri M. McCarthy – Associate, Morgan Lewis
• Babette Orenstein – Associate Counsel, Con Edison
• Salomon Louis – Program Owner, eDiscovery, MassMutual Financial Group

This thought-provoking session pushed attendees to imagine what legal discovery and team dynamics could look like in 2035 with just the right blend of realism and science fiction.

2035: Rethinking Workplace Communication and Discovery

The panelists acknowledged the rapid evolution in workplace communication tools and what that means for discovery. Traditional emails are already being replaced by chat platforms like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and embedded comments within live documents that continue conversations that could be linked to Microsoft Teams or email. Salomon Louis noted that “mediums are becoming more fluid,” requiring legal professionals to navigate cross-channel communication in many different ways while in discovery.

Bansri McCarthy pointed to how document hyperlinks and comment trails are reshaping the way we communicate in real time via the content in the hyperlinks themselves.

With a nod to virtual reality, Elizabeth Gary joked that we’d all be wearing headsets and communicating via brain chips, but then seriously predicted that VR-powered collaboration could become normal by 2035. “Gen Z is already pushing us toward more streamlined, tech-first ways of working,” she said.

Babette Orenstein summarized the current pain point: “It’s difficult to remember where a conversation happened. Was it in a comment, Teams message, or email?” As transcription tools become more integrated into our workflows, these ambiguities may fade, but only if legal teams can keep pace with tech.

AI on the Legal Team: The Rise of Legal Tech Agents

One of the most exciting discussions revolved around the evolution of legal teams to include AI engineers and researchers. Louis emphasized that these roles will be essential to help teams properly prompt large language models (LLMs) and mine insights from massive client datasets.

Elizabeth Gary pushed the boundary further: “Will we even consider AI agents as part of the legal team? Will we one day take testimony from an AI Agent?” While the courtroom may not be ready for that just yet, it’s clear that AI is becoming more than just a tool, it’s a teammate.

Gary also highlighted that her practice already integrates technologists with attorneys, stressing the growing importance of tech fluency within legal teams.

The New eDiscovery Stack: Streamlined, Unified, AI-Driven

The next ten years will see significant simplification and unification of eDiscovery tools. According to Louis, standardization across toolsets will normalize how data is exported and interpreted, making cross-channel communications easier to review.

McCarthy projected that firms will finally break down data silos, bringing together privacy, compliance, disposition and litigation considerations to determine how to best handle company data throughout its lifecycle. In the future, eDiscovery will be an element in the overall health and maintenance of data necessary for business operations.

From the audience, Cat Casey of Reveal delivered a compelling insight: “Ten years from now we will have full-fledged AI agents on case teams that will put the pieces together faster and more efficiently than humans.” In this future, technical analysis will happen before a human even lays eyes on the data.

What We Leave Behind. And What Stays the Same

Some predictions bordered on the radical. The Bates label? “Gone,” said Gary. Even the concept of a “document” might disappear as communication shifts from static files to fluid, embedded conversations.

Cat Casey affirmed this, declaring that documents, as we know them, have already started to die off.

Yet, the panel agreed: the human element won’t go away. In Gary’s words, “People will always have to take responsibility for the end result. They will still need to put their stamp of approval on it.” This reminder grounded the discussion in a legal truth: accountability cannot be automated.

Bold Predictions for 2035

The panel closed with some of their boldest predictions:

• Everything is discoverable! Even whispers. “Nothing is deleted and we just keep it all,” said Gary.
• Virtual courtroom reenactments could allow jurors to experience the scene in VR based on evidence.
• And perhaps most provocatively: AI agents as de facto case team members.

Final Thoughts: The Masters of the Next Decade

The Masters Conference NYC didn’t just forecast where legal tech is going it painted a vision of how attorneys, investigators, and eDiscovery professionals must evolve alongside it. The future of law is not about replacing people with machines, but about using machines to amplify human judgment, creativity, and ethics.

In 2035, we may no longer recognize today’s inbox or review platform, but we’ll still recognize the core of legal practice: trust, accountability, and thoughtful advocacy.

Welcome to the future. Welcome to the Masters 2035.

AI in the Courtroom: Insights from Judge Braswell | Masters Conference: Denver June 24, 2025 |  Article by Sheila Sadaghiani

At the Masters Conference in Denver, Co on June 24^th, Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell laid out a powerful framework for how courts are grappling with AI today. Judges are no longer on the sidelines, they’re gatekeepers, educators, and even users of AI tools. And the questions they’re asking today will shape the law for years to come.

Let’s be honest, many of us can’t help but roll our eyes when AI comes up (again). It’s not that it’s unimportant, quite the opposite. AI is a game-changer. But at this point, it’s everywhere: panels, webinars, conferences, articles…and yet, we’re still seeing more talk than real-world action.

I almost skipped this session, thinking, what could I possibly hear about AI that I haven’t already heard? Then my second thought was, well, I haven’t heard it from a judge. And Judge Braswell did not let us down. When she wrapped up her talk, the person behind me said exactly what I was thinking: “Wow, this was the best session!”

What made this discussion stand out is that it wasn’t centered on the usual “here’s a new tool” or “you need to catch up” narrative. Instead, it felt grounded in real-life impact and human responsibility. Judge Braswell didn’t talk at us about AI, she walked us through how it’s already reshaping courtroom decisions, legal ethics, and day-to-day operations. She reminded us that it’s up to us, judges, lawyers, and professionals to shape how AI is used, not just react to it. It felt less like hype and more like a thoughtful, honest conversation about what’s actually happening, what’s at stake, and how we move forward with intention.

Simple answer? Just start.

• Draft a basic AI policy. Build from there.
• Appoint an “AI Committee” to guide your team.
• Encourage responsible use.
• Try AI in your everyday life: make a grocery list, plan a trip, rewrite a tough email.

For me, AI is like a super-smart, non-judgy best friend. It sharpens my thoughts, challenges my blind spots, and makes me better at what I already do.

Here’s the truth: If you’re worried AI might replace jobs, consider this; those who learn to use it will replace those who don’t. Judge Braswell delivered some great insights, relying a framework developed by the Federal Judicial Center:

1. Judges as Evidentiary Gatekeepers

Key Insight: AI-generated content is creating deep uncertainty around what’s real. Judges must now determine what evidence is trustworthy, without clear precedent on deepfakes.

• Deepfakes are top of mind for some judges.
• Thomson Reuters + NCSC offer tools to categorize AI evidence: acknowledged vs. unacknowledged.
• Maura Grossman has offered the following 3-part inquiry to help surface a potential unacknowledged AI issue:
  1. Is it too good to be true?
  2. Has the source disappeared?
  3. Is the explanation for its absence overly complex?
• Judges are relying on gut instinct, legal experience, and honesty from professionals.

2. Judges as AI Communicators

Key Insight: Judges must now explain AI to lawyers, jurors, and the public, relying heavily on the legal community for clarity.

• Clear jury instructions and simplified language are essential.
• Experienced and knowledgeable lawyers, eDiscovery experts, and paralegals are more vital than ever.
• Communication shapes understanding, and outcomes in court.

3. Judges as Guardians of the Law

Key Insight: In the absence of sweeping AI laws, judges and legal professionals are the ones building the rules.

• Balancing legal precedent with emerging AI innovation is tricky.
• Example: Amazon’s AI hiring tool prioritized male resumes, a red flag.
• The courts will help define what should be done with AI, not just what can be done.

4. Judges as AI Users

Key Insight: Judges are cautiously testing AI tools in their own workflows, with strong guardrails.

• AI is helping streamline court tasks (seen in Florida, Texas).
• Ethical dilemmas arise. For example, what considerations come into play when AI avatars speak for victims?
• Other uses: a judge entered a crime scene simulation using VR, in Arizona AI avatars explain rulings.

Judge Braswell’s Framework When Using GenAI:

• Inputs: What info is going into the system? Is it confidential, protected, otherwise problematic to upload/ disclose/use for training data, etc.
• Outputs: What info is coming out of the system? Does it appear laden with bias, hallucination/etc.
• Use: How will this be used? Low risk or high risk? Low risk example- back and forth w/ LLM for brainstorming. High risk example- unverified reliance in work product.

5. Resources & Education for Judges

Key Insight: Judicial education is still catching up, but collaboration is key.

• Judges lean on bench cards, frameworks, and peer discussions.
• Sedona Conference offers a helpful 8-page AI judicial guide.
• Judicial conferences and ongoing education

6. The Role of Case Law in AI

Key Insight: Every AI-related case builds the legal AI playbook.
Lawyers educating the bench today are writing tomorrow’s rules.

7. AI in Public Institutions

Key Insight: Courts, DAs, and police are already leveraging AI for real results.

• San Francisco City Attorney used AI to clean up outdated/duplicative requirements in municipal code, manually impossible.
• Police in Oklahoma and other states using AI to generate reports from bodycam footage.

8. Forecast: 2025–2028

Key Insight: We’re moving from personal use to full-on transformation.

• 2024: AI use was personal, quiet, and behind the scenes.
• 2025: Companies are starting to learn. AI committees are forming.
• 2026: Governance structures and policies start solidifying.
• 2027–28: Roles are reinvented. Legal workflows are redesigned, not just automated.

9. Recommendations for Legal Leaders

Key Insight: It’s not about layering AI on top of existing frameworks and systems. It’s about reimagining how services are delivered, and work gets done.

Start here:

• Form cross-functional AI committees.
• Write and update your AI policies.
• Encourage honest, cross-generational dialogue.

10. Advice for Legal Professionals

Key Insight: Learn by doing. Stay transparent. Stay curious.

• You don’t need to be technical, just thoughtful, curious, and responsible.
• Soft skills, emotional intelligence, and communication still matter most.

Final Thought

Judge Braswell said it best: AI can enhance what we do if we approach it ethically, and with an open mind.

This isn’t a call to fear. It’s a call to lead.