{"id":92616,"date":"2024-08-15T09:37:41","date_gmt":"2024-08-15T13:37:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/?p=92616"},"modified":"2024-08-15T10:00:48","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T14:00:48","slug":"as-we-enter-the-age-of-accessible-law-furlong-other-legaltech-related-items","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/danielschristian.com\/learning-ecosystems\/2024\/08\/15\/as-we-enter-the-age-of-accessible-law-furlong-other-legaltech-related-items\/","title":{"rendered":"“As we enter the Age of Accessible Law” [Furlong] + other legaltech-related items"},"content":{"rendered":"

How Generative AI will change what lawyers do<\/strong> <\/a>— from jordanfurlong.substack.com by Jordan Furlong
\nAs we enter the Age of Accessible Law<\/strong><\/span>, a wave of new demand is coming our way \u2014 but AI will meet most of the surge. What will be left for lawyers? Just the most valuable and irreplaceable role in law.<\/em><\/p>\n

AI can already\u00a0provide\u00a0actionable\u00a0professional\u00a0advice; within the next ten years, if it takes that long, I believe it will offer acceptable legal advice. No one really wants \u201cAI courts,\u201d but soon enough, we\u2019ll have AI-enabled\u00a0mediation\u00a0and\u00a0arbitration, which will have a much greater impact on everyday dispute resolution.<\/p>\n

I think it\u2019s dangerous to assume that AI will never be able to do something that lawyers now do. \u201cNever\u201d is a very long time. And AI doesn\u2019t need to replicate the complete arsenal of the most gifted lawyer out there. If a Legal AI can replicate 80% of what a middling lawyer can do, for 10% of the cost, in 1% of the time, that\u2019s all the revolution you\u2019ll need.<\/p>\n

From DSC:<\/span><\/em>
\nIt is my sincere hope that AI will open up the floodgates to FAR great Access to Justice (A2J) in the future.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s the Battle of the AI Legal Assistants, As LexisNexis Unveils Its New Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 and Thomson Reuters Rolls Out CoCounsel 2.0<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0— from lawnext.com by Bob Ambrogi<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not quite BattleBots, but competitors LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters both made significant announcements today involving the development of generative AI legal assistants within their products.<\/p>\n

Thomson Reuters, which last year\u00a0acquired the CoCounsel legal assistant\u00a0originally developed by Casetext, and which later announced plans to\u00a0deploy it throughout its product lines, today unveiled what it says is the \u201csupercharged\u201d CoCounsel 2.0.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, LexisNexis said today it is rolling out the commercial preview version of its Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 Legal AI Assistant, which it describes as a \u201csubstantial leap forward in personalized generative AI that will transform legal work.\u201d It is part of the launch of the third generation of Lexis+ AI, the AI-driven legal research platform\u00a0the company launched last year.<\/p>\n

\n

Thomson Reuters Launches CoCounsel 2.0<\/strong><\/a> — from abovethelaw.com by\u00a0Joe Patrice
\nNew release promises results three times faster than the last version.<\/em><\/p>\n

It seems like just last year we were talking about CoCounsel 1.0, the generative AI product\u00a0launched by Casetext\u00a0and then\u00a0swiftly acquired by Thomson Reuters. That\u2019s because it\u00a0was\u00a0just last year. Since then, Thomson Reuters has worked to marry Casetext\u2019s tool with TR\u2019s treasure trove of data.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not an easy task. A lot of the legal AI conversation glosses over how constructing these tools requires a\u00a0radical confrontation with the lawyers\u2019 mind. Why do attorneys do what they do every day? Are there seemingly \u201cinefficient\u201d steps that actually serve a purpose? Does an AI \u201canswer\u201d advance the workflow or hinder the research alchemy? As recently as April, Thomson Reuters was\u00a0busy hyping the fruits of its efforts to get ahead of these challenges.<\/p>\n

\n

Though this next item is not necessarily related to legaltech, it’s still relevant to the legal realm:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

A Law Degree Is No Sure Thing<\/a><\/strong>— from cew.georgetown.edu
\nSome Law School Graduates Earn Top Dollar, but Many Do Not<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Summary<\/strong>
\nIs law school worth it? A Juris Doctor (JD) offers high median earnings and a substantial earnings boost relative to a bachelor\u2019s degree in the humanities or social sciences\u2014two of the more common fields of study that lawyers pursue as undergraduate students. However, graduates of most law schools carry substantial student loan debt, which dims the financial returns associated with a JD.<\/p>\n

A Law Degree Is No Sure Thing: Some Law School Graduates Earn Top Dollar, but Many Do Not\u00a0finds that the return on investment (ROI) in earnings and career outcomes varies widely across law schools. The median earnings net of debt payments are $72,000 four years after graduation for all law school graduates, but exceed $200,000 at seven law schools. By comparison, graduates of 33 law schools earn less than $55,000 net of debt payments four years after graduation.<\/p>\n

From DSC:<\/span><\/em>
\nA former boss’ husband was starting up a local public defender’s office in Michigan and needed to hire over two dozen people. The salaries were in the $40K’s she said. This surprised me greatly, as I thought all lawyers were bringing in the big bucks. This is not the case, clearly. Many lawyers do not make the big bucks, as this report shows:<\/span><\/p>\n

…graduates of 33 law schools earn less than $55,000 net of debt payments four years after graduation.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also relevant\/see:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n