I was honored to facilitate the “What’s Hot?” session for leading large law firm innovation professionals at the 2025 invitation-only Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders’ Summit in New York City on March 27, with Oz Benamram, the event’s co-founder and the former chief knowledge and innovation officer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

In a combination of discussion and exploration of survey research, the conversation served as a roadmap for law firms aiming to advance their practices into the future.

The SKILLS survey interviewed approximately 100 professionals in the first quarter of 2025 regarding their use of various artificial intelligence applications. The research respondents primarily came from large law firms, although firms of all sizes that emphasize innovation were encouraged to participate. The overwhelming majority (70) were based in the United States, with nine from the United Kingdom, eight from Canada and 13 from international law firms, mainly split between New York and London headquarters and various other countries. Completing the survey was a requirement to attend SKILLS.

Large law firms are deploying generative AI

The report identified 22 use cases and 180 solutions. On average, the law firm leaders that responded have 18 active generative AI solutions, six in a pilot phase and 22 under consideration. The most common use cases included contract drafting, time entry, due diligence and legal research.

One foundational principle resonating with the group is the leadership essential for driving change, and participants offered several recommendations to gain support. First, effective change management demands consistent communication from the top down throughout the organization. Second, innovation leaders who report directly to an executive, including the managing partner, may wield more influence in implementing change. Third, cross-functional leadership can enhance a team’s value for specific projects.

Nearly all SKILLS law firms have AI use policies

Nearly all law firms that responded (99%) have an AI use policy. However, fewer firms have developed an AI strategy (92%) or created an AI task force (87%). These results underscore the significant importance that law firm leaders place on tactical AI guidance, effective deployment protocols and collaborative talent.

They also serve as vital benchmarks for innovation teams dedicated to laying the groundwork for new initiatives. Without policies, strategies and skilled teams, companies may struggle to gain the essential trust of their internal stakeholders and clients needed to succeed with generative AI. This is particularly important as many legal professionals still fear and remain unfamiliar with several AI applications used by the respondents.

Developing an AI roadmap requires leadership and a framework

During the discussion, attendees recommended that policies governing the use of artificial intelligence include provisions for ethics, restrictions on firm-approved products, the significance of human involvement and a framework for risk assessment. Companies should also enhance their efforts by collaborating with external providers to supplement limited in-house resources.

While the adoption of generative AI at some firms is strong and sustained, the audience agreed that no clear demographic patterns exist. One attendee noted that the more senior a professional is, the greater value they can derive from using an AI platform by asking “smarter questions,” given their depth of knowledge and ability to add substance to a prompt.

Innovation teams are adapting to the shift from tools to transformation

Unsurprisingly, the innovation teams at the responding law firms hold primary responsibility for implementing the firms’ AI strategies (59%), closely followed by knowledge management (44%) and IT (43%), both of which share a similar level of oversight.

While the innovation team’s involvement has remained stable over the past year (59% in 2025 compared to 62% in 2024), knowledge management (44% in 2025 compared to 63% in 2024) and IT (43% in 2025 compared to 74% in 2024) have seen changes. Additionally, a quarter of respondents in 2024 indicated that other departments provided input, and 15% relied on external support for their AI initiatives.

Specific law firm trends have influenced which teams are responsible for certain actions. The discussion among law firm leaders regarding the deployment of artificial intelligence has quickly transitioned from technology to transformation. Law firms are increasingly reexamining their entire suite of applications and evaluating the quality and integrity of their data to ensure that any large language models they use can deliver the best results.

In 2025, this will concentrate less on technology and more on redefining the law firm’s strategy for maximizing the value of its information. Consequently, the innovation, IT and knowledge management teams will work together to navigate AI’s transformative impact on the firm.

Many organizations lacked clarity a year ago as law firms were still assessing potential applications and use cases. The rapid pace of AI development and the insatiable demand for its availability necessitates a cross-functional and interdisciplinary team to drive the firm forward, with a designated ambassador coordinating its proliferation. That diplomat is the head of innovation at many firms, whose responsibilities are broader and deeper than in 2024, yet the diplomatic corps remains multifaceted.

In particular, the role of IT teams in law firms has become significantly more prominent since the pandemic. As budgets have increased, cybersecurity has become essential, and growth is closely aligned with technology. This position emphasizes holistic operational excellence rather than merely digital transformation.

Another important trend to note is the expansion of knowledge management to include innovation, legal operations and artificial intelligence. Today, law firms frequently recruit talent from knowledge management and either assign responsibilities for innovation or promote a KM leader to a broader innovation-focused role. While only 35% of respondents work at firms that have appointed a “Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer” or created a similar leadership position, this will likely change and influence who addresses or navigates these challenges.

While the data indicates that innovation teams are becoming the primary AI stakeholders, the ownership structure remains more nuanced due to overlapping talent and experience. Additionally, more professionals use the term “innovation” in their titles.

The majority of law firms have deployed generative AI

More than two-thirds of participants (73%) have implemented an internal generative AI solution—either developed an AI chatbot internally or deployed one through a secure API. Sixteen percent reported that they built or commissioned a custom internal language model. Although uncommon, almost a quarter (24%) have created client-facing or revenue-generating products using generative AI. This trend appears to mirror the actions of law firms several years ago, which initially developed mobile apps for internal use and later began offering more comprehensive versions to clients.

One participant suggested creating a fully accessible library for generative AI prompts and project-specific recommendations, akin to Netflix for queries.

OpenAI’s GPT is the leading LLM in law firms, but the generative AI support market is fragmented

Among the 73% of respondents who have implemented a generative AI solution, about three-quarters (76%) use OpenAI’s GPT as their foundational LLM model. Anthropic’s Claude ranks second with 19%, while Google‘s Gemini ranks third with 15%. Interestingly, 3% reported developing with China’s DeepSeek.

A third (33%) reported using an external provider to help them build their language model; however, the market remains fragmented. Respondents mentioned about 15 applied AI partners. Although consolidation is expected, the current demand will likely drive short-term growth rather than contraction in the provider market.

Encouraging the adoption of generative AI remains challenging

While 73% of respondents indicated that their firms utilize a legal AI assistant or chatbot, 62% have adopted the application across the entire firm or a substantial subset for testing purposes.

Adoption rates have remained low, with only 22% reporting a 50% to 100% adoption rate. This low adoption level is one reason certain teams stopped using specific tools. Other factors include cost-effectiveness and the availability of better alternatives. As the market grows and the barriers to entry diminish due to advancements in robust AI models, competition will continue to intensify.

To ensure success, the attendees agreed that law firms should begin their initiatives with individuals who are willing and passionate, especially since adoption is rising within the existing user base rather than from a surge in new participants in any given project.

Additionally, when evaluating technology and processes, exploring markets beyond the United States, especially in Europe, can be advantageous for generating fresh ideas and acquiring a thorough understanding of the evolving legal industry.

In some firms, discussions about generative AI use cases are reigniting interest in document automation. It is experiencing a renaissance, as it may provide a more effective and cost-efficient solution to the challenges that some professionals expect generative AI to address.

AI legal assistants and chatbots are leading use cases

The research indicated that an AI legal assistant or chatbot was the most popular use case. Other significant applications included data extraction, summarization, legal drafting, contract review and analysis, proofreading, research and searching. In contrast, the least cited applications were patent and IP drafting, litigation management, automation of discovery responses, pitches and proposals, and compliance.

When considering a new application, “try to avoid signing a long-term agreement,” advised an audience member, who added, “Price renewals are also absurd, and a similar tool is often available at half the cost with better functionality.” A peer offered, “Applications without a unique value proposition, i.e., a moat protecting their competitive advantage, may not be worth a long-term investment.” Finally, one participant cautioned, “Don’t try to learn everything because the technology will continue to evolve and only get faster.”

Ari Kaplan is a lawyer and legal industry analyst who publishes benchmarking reports on legal technology trends and is an experienced webinar and conference facilitator.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted,…

Copyright Law

Art generated solely by AI can’t be copyrighted, federal appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 19, 2025, 11:05 am CDT

A federal appeals court has ruled against a computer scientist who sought to copyright a work of art made by his artificial intelligence system, the “Creativity Machine.”

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler is not entitled to copyright artwork made solely by AI, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday.

Reuters and Courthouse News Service have coverage of the March 18 opinion.

“The Creativity Machine cannot be the recognized author of a copyrighted work because the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being,” the D.C. Circuit said in a decision by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The holding makes is unnecessary to address the U.S. Copyright Office’s argument that the U.S. Constitution also requires human authorship of copyrighted material, Millett said. The appeals court also said Thaler had waived an argument that he could obtain a copyright because he made and used the Creativity Machine.

The D.C. Circuit said its decision does not prohibit a copyright when a work is authored by a human with the help of AI.

“The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being—the person who created, operated or used artificial intelligence—and not the machine itself,” Millett said.

Millett acknowledged that the Copyright Office has rejected some copyright applications based on the human-authorship requirement, even when a human is listed as the author.

“Line-drawing disagreements” over how much that AI contributed to a work aren’t issue in Thaler’s case, however, because he listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author, the appeals court said.

Thaler plans to appeal the decision, his attorney, Ryan Abbott, told Reuters.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

There’s nothing fake about it. The legal industry is facing a big problem with deepfakes. Courtrooms are not yet flooded with a tsunami of deepfake evidence, but with this artificial intelligence-generated technology playing with great success on social media and in fraud schemes, it’s only a matter of time before deepfakes regularly drop into the exhibit list.

Cases with a deepfake component already include:

• United States v. Reffitt: A defendant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s evidence could be a deepfake.
• Sz Huang v Tesla: A defendant’s counsel argued that video evidence of a party’s principal’s statements could be a deepfake.
• United States v. Doolin: A court allowed introduction of video evidence that the defense argued could have been a deepfake.
• Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corp.: An attorney submitted an exhibit reciting an allegedly false timeline of facts published in a newspaper that does not exist.

According to March 2023 article the New York Times, many of the apps and tools used to create deepfakes are available to anyone with a smartphone and are free or inexpensive, making it far too easy to create or alter digital evidence.

Amplifying the problem is the fact that “right now, truth is starting to become a matter of degree,” says Maura R. Grossman, a research professor at the University of Waterloo and an attorney and e-discovery special master. Grossman points to examples, such as touching up an exhibit photo to turn a frown into a smile. This small change may be immaterial to a case—or not.

What about changing a few pixels to make it impossible to tell whether someone is holding a phone or a gun in their hand? Materially altered photo and video evidence will be thrown out, but misinformation based on reconfigured reality will undoubtedly be introduced into the courtroom and to juries.

“So much of the justice system relies on interpreting evidence and deciding how much weight to give it,” Grossman says. “And we’re now moving into a world where not only can we no longer rely on our senses to do that, but we may need experts, and that changes the cost. And for the judge, that creates delays and adds a whole new layer.”

Is the most efficient solution a technical or a legal solution?

The legal world is grappling with how to handle deepfake evidence, with procedural solutions currently getting public attention as technology solutions develop more slowly. Here are three approaches on how evidence suspected of being deepfake can be handled in the legal system.

1. Technical experts

Digital forensic experts use machine-learning capabilities in AI-based detection systems to inspect the authenticity of digital media. Deepfake videos with audio are the most difficult to identify because of the human tendency to overlook small discrepancies in a video and focus on the main idea.

Digital forensic experts can apply multimodal analysis to examine multiple data sources and combine techniques. These capabilities range from artifact detection, to frame-by-frame analysis and blink analysis, to luminance gradient analysis and pixel error analysis. After conducting necessary analyses, the expert can render an opinion as to whether the evidence is authentic or altered—or not—based on irregularities found.

Hiring a digital forensic expert can cost from a few hundred dollars for hourly consulting to several thousand dollars per project. For high-profile cases with significant legal implications, fees can be much greater.

Jerry Bui of Texas-based Right Forensics is also a consultant to Interpol. He tells us that, “Deepfakes force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Seeing is no longer believing. As forensic experts, we’re not just authenticating evidence—we’re trying to safeguard the integrity of the justice system in an era where digital manipulation can rewrite reality.”

Chuck Kellner is a strategic discovery adviser at Everlaw.

2. Court rules

U.S. courts are slowly moving to address deepfake evidence. At the Nov. 8, 2024, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, a committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the committee considered proposed Rule 901(c), authored by Grossman and Judge Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and professor at the Duke University School of Law.

The rule, if adopted, would govern “potentially fabricated or altered electronic evidence,” reading: “If a party challenging the authenticity of computer-generated or other electronic evidence demonstrates to the court that a jury reasonably could find that the evidence has been altered or fabricated, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence, the evidence is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect on the party challenging the evidence.”

Grimm and Grossman’s proposed rule places burdens on the challenging and the offering parties, as well as the courts, helping to reduce the risk of exposing juries to deepfakes. It is one of several being considered by various judicial committees. Some experts think that no changes are needed to the rules of evidence.

Given the speed at which deepfake technology evolves and improves, changes in rules or procedures might not be useful. In the meantime, decisions will be meted out by the courts based on individual challenges as they arise.

3. Procedural approaches

Courts will use the existing rules to make decisions for the foreseeable future, having hearings on evidence. Judges will have to agree to analyze digital evidence, putting the burden on litigants to prove the legitimacy of the evidence in question, rather than placing the onus on the judge to decide whether the evidence is genuine or deepfake, admissible or not.

One of the critical issues that arises when considering the legal impact of deepfakes is cost—who pays to prove whether evidence is real or fake?

“This becomes an access-to-justice issue,” says Rebecca Delfino, the associate dean of clinical programs and experiential learning at the Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University. “In a perfect world, it would be taken care of in a criminal case. If the government wants to prove an audio-visual image is of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defendant claims it’s a deepfake, the government should have to pay for expert analysis because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. That may or may not happen; It depends on the available resources.

“But in the civil context, it’s going to be a significant problem,” Delfino continues. “Even for a simple example—such as the expression in a photograph being digitally altered from a frown to a smile—the individual will need to retain some type of expert.”

In family court, with its many pro se litigants, yet another reality exists—that a photo showing bruises would change someone’s life. Is it real or a deepfake? Who pays the expert to analyze it?

It’s just one of a multitude of questions that remains to be answered on how the legal world will adapt to a rising tide of deepfake evidence. We may not be at the end of reality, but deepfakes are definitely going to rock the legal world as we know it.

Practice tips

1. Look for items of evidence that are too good or too damaging to be true.
2. Deepfakes in social media tend to be video, audio and pictures. You can easily get automated optical character recognition to find text in pictures. You can also get machine transcription of audio and video. Each of these yields searchable text that you can use as a starting point to uncover suspicious material.
3. Plan your deposition or trial, so that you have your exhibit lists ready earlier than you do now. Implore the court to require your adversaries to do the same.
4. Evaluate the exhibits, paying close attention to those with audio, video or picture formats. Interview your witnesses, and challenge suspicious content. Don’t wait until the day of testimony.
5. Be prepared to engage a computer forensic examiner to evaluate the evidentiary quality of an item suspected of deepfake.

See also:

Is the legal system ready for AI-generated deepfake videos?

Chuck Kellner is a strategic discovery adviser at Everlaw. Kellner has worked as an expert on e-discovery protocols, proportionality and cost of e-discovery, findings on computer forensic examination, and requirements for defensible search and review.

Mind Your Business is a series of columns written by lawyers, legal professionals and others within the legal industry. The purpose of these columns is to offer practical guidance for attorneys on how to run their practices, provide information about the latest trends in legal technology and how it can help lawyers work more efficiently, and strategies for building a thriving business.

Interested in contributing a column? Send a query to [email protected].

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Historically, the legal profession has been slow to embrace emerging technologies. E-discovery software, however, was an exception, largely because Congress amended Rule 26(f) to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required its implementation. While e-discovery adoption was not always enthusiastic, it was notable, representing one of the first times legal professionals truly leaned into modern technology.

Initially, e-discovery software was cutting-edge, offering legal professionals the ability to sort through and categorize massive amounts of electronically stored information for production in litigation matters. Over the years, significant advancements in this category of software were few and far between. Systems transitioned from premises-based systems to the cloud—an important change—but truly innovative updates were rare.

In November 2022, generative artificial intelligence tools became widely available to the general public, which laid the foundation for the next stage of innovation in discovery software. Since then, more than 10 companies have integrated this technology into their products.

With generative AI features embedded in e-discovery tools, the identification, collection, preservation, processing, review and analysis of relevant electronic documents are simplified. The software can also assist with rapidly analyzing large volumes of data, identifying patterns and providing insights overlooked during manual review. Some platforms even include generative AI-driven advanced search capabilities, which enable more accurate keyword searches, tagging and redaction.

Choosing e-discovery software with generative AI features

If your law firm is interested in exploring how generative AI can improve the e-discovery process, first assess your firm’s specific needs and how these tools will integrate into your litigation workflow. What are the biggest challenges when managing electronically stored information? Which tasks consume the most time? How can generative AI streamline the process by automating document review, categorization or privilege identification?

Next, consider the tools that your firm is currently using. Do they include generative AI features, or is generative AI development on the product road map? Are there integrations available that would provide the functionality that you’re seeking? If your current providers are expanding their AI capabilities, it may be more efficient to adopt those updates, rather than implementing an entirely new platform.

Trusted providers should be the first place that you look before exploring new vendors. Leveraging existing tools with AI enhancements can minimize disruption, reduce onboarding time and ensure consistency in your firm’s workflows.

Vetting e-discovery providers

When your firm adopts cloud-based e-discovery tools, you are entrusting a third party with sensitive client data. Ethical obligations require you to vet the provider thoroughly, which includes reviewing data security measures, storage locations, access controls and backup policies to ensure compliance with professional responsibilities.

For AI-enhanced platforms, it’s also essential to understand the accuracy of AI-generated outputs, how the provider protects user data, and whether queries will contribute to training AI models.

Finally, whenever possible, take advantage of free trials or demos to test usability and determine whether a platform aligns with your firm’s needs.

With these considerations in mind, let’s explore AI-powered e-discovery tools.

E-discovery tools with generative AI features

  • Reveal: Offers an AI-powered platform featuring “Ask,” a generative AI search tool that facilitates natural language queries and streamlines document review and analysis by providing verifiable insights and summaries.

  • Relativity: Provides “Relativity aiR,” a suite of AI tools designed to enhance review to gauge the responsiveness of documents; case strategy to create case summaries and timelines; and privilege review, which accelerates the identification of privileged information.

  • DISCO: “Cecilia” is its generative AI tool that translates and summarizes documents and depositions, enables interrogation of evidence or individual documents, generates timelines, and automates document review.

  • Everlaw: Features the “EverlawAI Assistant,” which integrates with Everlaw’s Storybuilder and document review products. Using a Q&A format, it provides verifiable outputs that expedite document review and surface critical information to assist in crafting convincing arguments.

  • Exterro: “Exterro Assist” is a generative AI tool embedded in the company’s e-discovery and legal governance solutions. With it, users can query the system using natural language to obtain contextually relevant results. It can also be used to automate workflows, summarize cases and documents, and create reports.

  • Lexbe: Offers “CoPilot,” a generative AI-powered feature that summarizes documents, extracts key details and improves review efficiency. This tool enables legal teams to understand evidence and develop case strategies quickly.

  • HaystackID: HaystackID’s “Core Intelligence AI” automates key e-discovery tasks, such as data classification, document summarization and the identification of sensitive information. It helps legal teams manage large volumes of data, speeds up review and streamlines the process of locating relevant and privileged documents.

  • eDiscovery Assistant: For e-discovery practitioners, eDiscovery Assistant also integrates generative AI technology into its software. The functionality enables the generation of concise caselaw summaries, allowing legal professionals to assess the relevance and implications of judicial decisions swiftly.

Driving change

Having led the legal profession’s first major shift to digital workflows, e-discovery is once again driving change—this time through AI. With so many companies prioritizing generative AI development, e-discovery practitioners have more options than ever. As the technology improves, deeper integration will increase efficiency and introduce new capabilities.

Generative AI innovations are providing legal teams with an expanding set of tools to streamline document review, enhance predictive analysis, and uncover insights that might otherwise go unnoticed. As the technology evolves, deeper integration will further improve efficiency and introduce new capabilities, reinforcing e-discovery’s role as a key driver of legal innovation.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.