While I do think it presents an existential threat to some lawyer jobs -- specifically those doing low-skill tasks as part of Biglaw behemoths -- when a company told me several years ago that they would license AI based off the brains of famous attorneys within the decade I went right ahead and laughed. But then we started talking about some of the cool technology Casepoint is bringing to the party and discussed how the system's ability to break down all the data and map out the connections for itself and build a real story of events. Hurt feelings aren't necessarily a fraud claim and keeping the presumption in favor of the four corners of the document can dissuade cases that -- even if they're true -- would be difficult to prove because we can't reliably muster the whole life cycle to sort out in litigation. Would judges eyeing a motion to dismiss start to balk at the risk of missing a fraud when the costs of getting at the whole story in discovery isn't prohibitive? Transactional lawyers might need to think about the well-worn language to avoid an influx of fights if this is the sort of material that a party could easily compile in a dispute.

I've never been one for hyperbolic talk about artificial intelligence. While I do think it presents an existential threat to some lawyer jobs -- specifically those doing low-skill tasks as part of Biglaw behemoths -- when a company told me several years ago that they would license AI based off the brains of famous attorneys within the decade I went right ahead and laughed. The point is, AI is a tool, and a very powerful one, that you're using all the time without even thinking about it. It's why midway through this article, Google is likely showing you an ad for the thing you researched buying last night. So it surprised me the other day when I found myself musing that AI is driving us to the point where long accepted tenets of law might need rethinking.