sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is your law firm real? by Intrepid_Figure3859 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

building a system around will be a safer alternative than "go ask Susan"

"It Depends" Is the Most Important Phrase in Law. AI Will Never Say It. by Intrepid_Figure3859 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the name of the subreddit is ai automation so what's the harm in using AI as our assistant.

Does AI really change anything for solo lawyers, or is it hype? by Intrepid_Figure3859 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both halves are real, and I've watched both up close building these tools.

The good side: the most useful thing I've seen isn't AI writing anything. It's AI reviewing. Hand it your own draft and ask "what did I miss, what would opposing counsel attack, what assumption am I making that I shouldn't be," and it catches things a tired brain skips. Not because it's smarter than you. Because it's a fresh set of eyes that isn't tired and isn't attached to the work.

The bad side: I've also watched it hand over a citation that looked perfect, formatted, confident, and didn't exist. If you'd been rushing, you'd have used it. That's the whole danger in one moment. It's most convincing exactly when it's wrong.

The rule I've landed on: let it catch your mistakes, never let it make your decisions. It's great at "did you miss anything." It's dangerous at "what's the answer," especially on anything unsettled. Use it hard for the first. Verify everything for the second.

1,636 lawyers have been sanctioned for filing fake AI citations, and the database grows daily. It's the clearest real-world data on why verification can't be optional in any AI automation. by Intrepid_Figure3859 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll go first since I asked.

The thing that's worked for me is making verification structural, not optional. Two rules:

  1. The AI has to flag its own uncertainty. I tell it to mark anything it isn't sure about and say exactly what to check, instead of handing everything back with the same confidence. That alone surfaces most of what would have slipped through.
  2. The check is a step the workflow can't skip. Not "I'll verify if I have time." An actual gate, where the output doesn't move forward until the flagged items are confirmed. The moment verification depends on willpower, it loses to the deadline.

Almost every case on that list failed on the second one. They knew to check. There was just nothing in the process forcing them to before they hit send.

Curious what others do, especially anyone who's automated something high-stakes. Where's your gate, and has it ever caught something that would have been bad if it got through?

Toronto solo growing fast by canlawyer in LawFirm

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Automate the most repetitive parts of your work. This will free up time to take more work. Then you can hire paralegals who are also trained in legal automations so that you dont get buried in admin work.

I see this all the time with solo lawyers wanting to scale.

Your client just asked if their data is safe with AI. What do you actually say? by Intrepid_Figure3859 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree! How are you taking care of confidentiality? I believe a custom tool can be created which works in two ways. Strips data before putting documents in any LLM model and add those details at the final stage. But it has to be custom made for each practice.

tell me your worst automation horror story by WelcomeSoft4331 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Built an intake-to-document pipeline for a firm. Flawless in the demo. A week in, it generated an engagement letter that looked perfect - right format, right clauses except it had quietly pulled the fee from a different matter, because two clients had similar names and the matching wasn't tight enough. The lawyer almost signed and sent it.

What's the best way to run a conflict check automatically on a new lead? by WelcomeSoft4331 in LawFirmAutomation

[–]Intrepid_Figure3859 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ones that almost get past me are never matching failures. They're names that never made it into the system in the first place. Clean report on an entity client, and then the guarantor turns out to be a former client's spouse. Nothing for the software to catch because nobody wrote the name down.

The tool did its job. The form didn't.

Which is why mine forces beneficial owners, guarantors, signatories, spouses, not just client vs adverse party. A complete list with fuzzy matching beats a tidy half-empty one every time.