I highly encourage people to follow this advice. My fellow lawyers could use more people like him relying on AI instead of a lawyer. It makes it sooooo much eas

I highly encourage people to follow this advice. My fellow lawyers could use more people like him relying on AI instead of a lawyer. It makes it sooooo much easier for opposing counsel to win cases that would otherwise have been a slogfest against competent counsel. Really, it fundamentally boils down to this: the CEO didn't bother tell his legal counsel he wanted to minimize legal spend. He just told them to do their thing. So they did, and because they weren't given constraints they did their thing well. But it wasn't what the CEO actually wanted them to do. The problem was that he didn't tell them what he wanted to do, and assumed that lawyers were telepaths and knew what he wanted. So he did a dumber thing and decided to turn to an LLM, instead of doing the thing he should have done in the first place: tell his original lawyers what he actually wanted. He ended up getting lucky and not getting burned by it due to facts he chose not to disclose, but he is the rare exception. Also, there are some huge falsehoods in his post, like #3. AIs are absolute shite at reviewing lengthy contracts. They're great at summarizing things where the correctness of the summary doesn't matter, but they're horrible at summarizing things where being correct is important. Also, his example of how the AI is used isn't AI. It's literally just a keyword search, which has been a thing for 3 or 4 decades now, and has been a basic function of doc review software for the last 2 decades. #4. No, just no. It would cost more money to have the lawyer review an AI-generated legal document than to create one from scratch. Lawyers don't actually create most legal documents from scratch; they use templates from contracts and pleadings that have already gone through the legal trial by fire. So you're actually increasing your legal spend quite dramatically if you use AI instead. Hallucinations. New models are not getting better at eliminating hallucinations; they're actually getting worse. Many of the recent AI-related court fails were from lawyers using the LLM tools provided by legal service providers like LexisNexis, and those LLMs were trained solely on legal databases. Even a single hallucinated citation in a legal filing allows the judge to void the entire filing and sanction the lawyers and client; in many situations the court this can result in a procedural loss for the client that they would have otherwise won on the merits if it had proceeded to trial. TLDR: use AI if you want to make things easier for the other side of the lawsuit. Don't be like Trump. Experts exist for a reason. You wouldn't ask your lawyer to program your backend, so why would you turn to an AI for legal advice?