Key insights:

• • • AI is changing legal’s role, not just its workload — Going forward, AI will do more than automate routine tasks, it also will help in-house legal teams become more strategic business partners.

    • The 5 archetypes make the transformation concrete — There are five practical ways in which AI could reshape legal work, including automation, stronger advising, better collaboration, and global scale.

    • Every organization’s AI transformation will be different — ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę’ own legal transformation journey shows the common and unique aspects of this process.

Beyond the automation, productivity boosts, or the now-familiar promise of doing more with less, the question over how AI will really transform the work that corporate legal departments do on a daily basis, has yet to be truly answered.

To deepen our understanding of where in-house legal is really heading next, Norie Campbell, ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę Chief Legal Officer, and Lizzy Duffy, a Senior Director of the Thomson Reuters Institute, produced a new feature article, The 2030 legal department: 5 ways AI will transform how in-house teams workĚýthat steps back from the day-to-day noise around AI and asks the bigger, more interesting question: “What is the legal function actually becoming?”

Importantly, the article recognizes that in-house legal teams are navigating real constraints around time, budget, and clarity even as expectations continue to evolve. It also acknowledges how GCs are balancing rising demands with a growing focus on efficiency, while also working to define what effective and meaningful AI adoption should look like for their teams.

Indeed, this human pressure is one of the most compelling aspects to the questions corporate law departments are facing today, and it reverberates beyond a simple theory of AI in legal to really reflect a profession at a turning point.

The five archetypes

The feature also lays out five archetypes — distinct models for how AI could reshape legal work, from high-volume automation to better strategic advising, stronger business partnering, smarter collaboration with outside counsel, and truly global leverage across teams and languages.

By referencing these five archetypes, legal department leaders can start asking where their own teams fit, and what they need to do to get better prepared for the AI-driven legal future of 2030.

These archetypes cover everything from deciding on the best ways to leverage AI-led automation to helping legal teams become more proactive strategic advisers. The archetypes also detail how to foster collaboration that can allow other corporate functions to act more confidently without constant legal intervention. And how to use AI to reduce barriers caused by language and time zones, enabling multinational legal teams to work more effectively across geographies.

By referencing these five archetypes, legal department leaders can start asking where their own teams fit, and what they need to do to get better prepared for the AI-driven legal future of 2030.

¶¶ŇőłÉÄę’ own journey

This feature article also builds a practical, grounded picture of the future from inside ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę’ own General Counsel’s Office (GCO), showing readers a transformation that’s already taking shape.

This insider perspective offers a front-row look at how one GCO is trying to move from experimentation to real transformation and tells a bigger story than technology alone. Today’s transformation of the corporate legal department is really about leadership, ambition, and the choices department leaders need to make now if they want to stay relevant by 2030.

More than anything, the feature article stresses that adopting AI tools is not the same as true transformation. To move beyond incremental gains, legal departments must redesign workflows, improve data infrastructure, invest in training, and hire for adaptability and technical literacy. Ultimately, the central message is that efficiency is only a by-product — the real challenge is deciding what kind of legal function an organization will need in 2030 and how to start building toward that vision now.

You can access the full feature article, The 2030 legal department: 5 ways AI will transform how in-house teams work here

Key highlights:

• • • CurriculumĚýredesign must start now — One law school’s approach illustrates the necessity of mapping the entire curriculum to identify which skills to preserve, evolve, or build from scratch.

    • Training faculty in AI use is critical — Faculty AI training should be a multi-layered approach including hands-on training with specialized legal AI tools, guidance on redesigning curricula, and more.

    • AI simulations may be the key — Law school leaders need to act now by experimenting with small pilot projects and building simulation-based learning tools to replace the developmental depth that once came naturally in the first years of practice.

The debate about AI consuming most of the work that teaches essential lawyering skills to junior attorneys is forcing a reckoning with the long-held assumption that law schools were never designed to produce practice-ready lawyers and that it was always the profession’s job.

Indeed, AI is forcing that uncomfortable truth into the open faster than anyone anticipated because essential lawyering work — the document review, contract markup, research memo creation — dictated how a junior lawyer learned to spot the issue buried on page 47, to sense when a clause was off, and to develop the instinct that no classroom can fully replicate. Now, as more law firms deploy AI to handle precisely those entry-level tasks, the organic training moments that used to define the first two to three years of legal practice are evaporating.

, Executive Dean, Faculty of Law at Bond University, and Co-Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans, says he sees where this is leading. The ultimate results will be firms hiring fewer junior lawyers today because AI has taken over that entry-level work, James explains, adding that means there will simply be no pipeline of mid-level, experienced lawyers to draw from in three to five years. Indeed, this is a slow-moving crisis, already in motion, and yet to fully arrive.

This crisis lands at the center of what the AI and Future of Legal Practice (AIFLP) initiative exists to address because at the core of this crisis is what does being job-ready really means when the job itself is being redefined. Answering this question requires law schools, law firms, licensing bodies, and technologists to do something they have historically struggled to do — that is to think and act collaboratively.

Rethinking the curriculum before AI does it for you

leads IE Law School’s AI initiative and is steering the school’s efforts to embed AI across the curriculum. To do so effectively, her approach requires going back to a broader set of foundational questions in legal education such as: For what is legal education meant to prepare students? How do students learn to develop legal judgment? What makes legal advice genuinely valuable? And what skills are essential to deliver that value in an AI-enabled profession?

“Layering AI tools on top of an unchanged curriculum serves no one,” Perez-Llorca explains, adding that without answers to the fundamental questions, “you are just adding technology to a structure that was never designed to handle it.”

Check out how one law school professor is building AI simulation tools

IE law school is currently mapping its entire curriculum to determine which skills need to be preserved, which need to evolve, and which need to be built from scratch, while also using the AI-boosted curriculum to train faculty. Perez-Llorca describes the school’s faculty AI training as a multi-layered approach encompassing university-wide LLM training, substantive AI law curriculum review, hands-on training with specialized legal AI tools, guidance on redesigning curricula, and assessments to reflect students’ growing AI proficiency. Before students can be taught with AI, professors need to understand the tools themselves and how to use them in teaching, in simulation, and in assessment, she adds.

An AI tutor that meets students where they are

Bond University’s James says he has spent the last several months building an AI tutor designed to walk students through course material the way a patient, attentive instructor would. His vision for the AI teaching assistant supports the professor meeting students where they are. “It [the AI tutor] introduces the week’s topic, outlines learning outcomes, guides students through the readings, checks comprehension with short quizzes, and then adapts in real time based on how the student responds,” James explains, adding that the AI tutor will pull any student who is struggling deeper into the material until the learning outcome is achieved. “The conversation never stops until the learning does.”

However, James is careful to draw a clear distinction about what the tutor replaces and what it does not, stressing that AI is a substitute for the lecture recording, the static reading list, or the passive video watched at midnight before an exam — but it chiefly exists to support the law professor. This approach frees up class time, turning it from content delivery to more meaningful the time between the human instructor and students, he adds.

Act by design or default

The approaches by both Perez-Llorca and James point to a way to address the question of disappearing tasks that teach essential lawyering skills as well as shift the center of gravity in legal education toward ways to foster developmental skills and legal judgment. Indeed, inertia is not a strategy, and law school deans and associate deans can be at the forefront of this fight by taking decisive action, including:

• • • Experiment freely — Investigate with AI on your own by starting small with a pilot project.
    • Strategically assign where AI goes — Decide where AI belongs in the curriculum, such as in courses focused on legal research and drafting as they become commoditized by AI. Also, determine in which instances AI does not belong, such as counseling clients through ambiguity, navigating ethical complexity, and advocating persuasively. Make sure these all remain led by human lawyers.
    • Focus on skills — Map your law school’s curriculum by identifying which skills need to be preserved, which skills need to evolve, and which need to be built from scratch.
    • Build AI-assisted teaching tools — Make experiential and simulation-based learning central to the curriculum.

“The choice is between dealing with this crisis by design or by default,” James says, noting that the pipeline problem he described is already in motion while the practitioners, educators, technologists, and licensing bodies that need to solve this together are not yet consistently in the same room.

Watch our recent Clarity podcast to see

Key insights:

• • • UK law firms face a more selective growth market in 2026Ěý— Client demand remains steady, but external legal spend expectations have cooled, with growth concentrated in areas such as Regulatory, Labor & Employment, and international work.

    • Legal expertise alone is no longer enough — UK legal buyers increasingly favor law firms that combine technical excellence with commercial judgment, business understanding, and practical guidance aligned to client priorities.

    • AI adoption is becoming a client expectationĚý— Corporate legal teams are moving faster than their outside law firms on GenAI, and many UK legal buyers now expect outside counsel to use AI to improve efficiency, workflows, and the quality of legal work.

The legal market in the United Kingdom today has shifted into a new normal. While law firms saw an explosion of demand and spending immediately following the pandemic, increasing client caution has resulted in a shift in priorities. Today’s law firms cannot simply rely on their old ways of providing legal service to succeed, as UK clients expect firms to combine expertise, commercial judgment, international reach, and visible AI-enabled improvements in how legal work is delivered.

Jump to ↓

2026 State of the UK Legal Market

A new report from the Thomson Reuters Institute, “2026 State of the UK Legal Market,” reveals how the UK legal market is shifting, as more judicious clients are beginning to force law firms to reassess their strategy. Overall anticipated net spend from legal clients has seen declining growth rates in recent years, and while some practices like Regulatory and Labor & Employment continue to see strong demand growth, other practice areas such as Insurance, IP, and Disputes face potential contraction.

This shift is also guided by emerging buyer preferences. The report reveals an increasing commerciality to the UK legal market, one in which clients increasingly favor advisors that combine legal excellence with commercial judgement, and those that are leveraging AI to bolster not only efficiency but improve the overall legal work product.

Taken as a whole, the report paints a picture of clients that now are moving faster than their outside legal advisors, strengthening their internal capabilities, and setting clearer (and higher) expectations. This means that UK law firms cannot rest on their laurels, as clients increasingly push their outside firms to keep up with new business challenges.

The market is cautious, but opportunity remains

The report reveals that UK legal buyers are more cautious about external legal spend than they have been at any point in the last five years. That may mean law firms can no longer rely on the broad-based demand that defined the post-pandemic period and instead need to be more precise about where opportunity exists — and where it doesn’t.

The report tracks buyer sentiment through net spend anticipation (NSA), which measures the share of buyers expecting to increase external legal spend over the next 12 months minus those expecting to decrease it. Since its 2021 peak, UK NSA has fallen steadily to +5 percentage points in 2025, returning the market to the more stable, single-digit baseline that was seen before the pandemic.

For those law firms looking to capture increased business, the report makes clear that legal expertise is now the price of entry, not the point of differentiation. The firms that stand out will be those that know how to apply their expertise in ways that reflect the client’s business realities.

Indeed, that is becoming even more important as corporate legal departments face growing pressure to demonstrate their own value to the wider organization, and they’re increasingly pointing to improvements in their own quality and effectiveness even before mentioning cost savings, efficiency, or time savings. Not surprisingly, more than one-third of UK legal buyers now cite business savviness as a reason they favor a particular law firm.

To help demonstrate their internal value, clients are pushing their outside law firms to leverage advanced technology to improve the overall effectiveness of legal work. Of course, this has resulted in a clear gap, the report notes, between how corporate legal teams are moving and how law firms are responding. For instance, the report shows that more than half of UK corporate legal respondents say their organizations are already using GenAI tools across the business, compared with just about one-third law firm respondents who said this.

That difference in outlook matters because clients increasingly believe AI will become a larger part of how legal work is delivered, and they’re not content to simply wait and see whether their outside counsel will fully adopt the technology. Indeed, corporate legal departments are expecting their outside law firms to keep pace with how legal work is changing, and they will reward those firms that do.

You can download

a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “2026 State of the UK Legal Market” by filling out the form below:

Key points:

• • • AI capability is jagged — Ethan Mollick’s frontier metaphor describes a coastline of strengths and weaknesses, in which a model that excels at contract analysis can fabricate a citation in the same conversation.

    • Human intelligence is jagged too — A century of psychology, from multiple intelligences to the Big Five, shows that each lawyer has their own coastline of strengths and weaknesses.

    • Person-AI fit is the next discipline — Firms that take this seriously will move from one-tool deployments to portfolios that match each lawyer to an AI partner whose jagged edges meet theirs.

Welcome back to The AI Law Professor. Last month, I examined how AI first drafts can blind us to other lines of reasoning and hijack our legal judgment. This month, I want to take up what determines whether an AI works for any given lawyer at all: Not which model is best, but which model is best for this lawyer, on this kind of work, at this point in their career

Professor and author gave us the metaphor that started this conversation — the jagged frontier of AI capability. Picture a coastline, irregular and unpredictable. On one side, the model is capable; on the other, it fails, sometimes catastrophically. The line itself does not run where you expect. Tasks that look hard turn out to be easy, and tasks that look easy turn out to be hard.

In terms of legal work, this means that a model that has just produced a useful contract analysis will confidently invent a citation. A model that has summarized a 90-page deposition with insight will fail at basic arithmetic. The capabilities of AI form a coastline, with bays and inlets and the occasional cliff. Mollick’s contribution was to give us a way to see this clearly. AI is not uniformly competent or uniformly incompetent — rather, it is jagged.

Humans are jagged too. Psychology has been telling us this for a century, although the message is uncomfortable enough that we keep flattening it back into a single number. The single-number version is IQ; yet the deeper issue with IQ is that it pretends intelligence is one-dimensional.

Developmental psychologist Howard Gardner’s , whatever its empirical limits, points us toward a more honest picture, one in which linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and kinesthetic intelligences, are each largely independent. People are not equally strong across all these dimensions. So, it follows that a great trial lawyer and a great patent lawyer are drawing on different intelligences, and each could be lost in the other’s territory.

Human intelligence, like AI capability, is jagged, and each of us has an edge. The jaggedness is not a flaw to be smoothed; rather, it’s a feature of being a unique individual.

When two jagged edges meet

Place the two coastline maps — the human and the AI model — side by side. Press them together at random and they grind, with gaps where neither side fills the space and ridges where both claim the same territory. The lawyer’s strength overlaps with the AI model’s strength, so neither is amplified. The lawyer’s weakness overlaps with the model’s weakness, so neither is covered. The pair produces less than either party would produce alone.

However, align the same two surfaces with attention to their contours and something different happens. The peaks of one fit the valleys of the other. The lawyer’s weakness is met by the model’s strength; and the model’s weakness is met by the lawyer’s strength. The pair becomes more capable than either party alone.

A law firm that takes this seriously will not deploy a single AI tool across all of its lawyers and call the rollout complete. It will offer a portfolio of models and configurations and help each lawyer find the AI partner that works with their actual mind.

Every foundational model now ships with a model card, a document describing the model’s intended uses, training data, performance characteristics, and known limitations. The cards exist because models are not interchangeable. Read three of these cards side by side and the matching question becomes clear. A cautious generalist that hedges and flags uncertainty fits a lawyer who already holds strong views and wants a partner that will test them. A citation-anchored specialist that refuses to invent cases and stays grounded in retrieval fits a lawyer in heavily regulated practice areas in which errors are catastrophic.

The matchmaking discipline

Organizational psychology has worked on a version of this problem for 50 years under the . When a person’s strengths, values, and working style align with the demands and culture of their role, performance and well-being both rise. When they misalign, performance drops and burnout follows.

The same logic applies to person-AI fit. On the human side, cognitive style, domain expertise, personality profile, and the actual tasks performed in a typical week are key. On the AI side, behavior under different prompt styles, default tone, willingness to push back, hallucination patterns, and the shape of strengths and weaknesses across the practice areas in question may matter most. Yet, law firms are still treating AI procurement as a software decision rather than a partnership decision.

A law firm that takes this seriously will not deploy a single AI tool across all of its lawyers and call the rollout complete. It will offer a portfolio of models and configurations and help each lawyer find the AI partner that works with their actual mind. The first generation of legal AI has been dominated by the question of which model is best; however, the second generation will be dominated by a different question: Not which model, but which pairing works best. Not capability, but fit.

Those lawyers that flourish with AI will not necessarily be the most technical or the most enthusiastic users. Instead, they will be the ones that found, by luck or by design, an AI partner whose jagged edges meet theirs.

When two jagged intelligences fit well together, they can accomplish more than what either — human or AI — could do alone. Today, fit is the frontier.

Tom Martin is CEO & Founder of LawDroid, Adjunct Professor at Suffolk University Law School, and author of the forthcoming

Ěý

Key insights:

• • • Accountability, not adoption, is the central governance challengeĚý— With many institutions using AI a variety of tasks, informal “shadow AI” use is expanding without consistent oversight.

    • Justice systems now face a parallel governance problem — They must find a way to regulate AI while using AI inside the institutions that enforce rights, while allowing responsible innovation that improves efficiency and access to justice.

    • AI needs to be integrated into broader justice reformĚý— Without strong data governance and clear boundaries between AI assistance and legal judgment, courts risk automating inefficiency, deepening inequities, and undermining public trust.

Even as AI governance frameworks remain mired in ongoing debate, justice systems are moving ahead with implementation. Courts and dispute resolution institutions are integrating AI into their operations to more efficiently digitize records and automate workflows.

This introduces the very real challenge of parallel governance. We must now determine not only how AI should be regulated, but how it operates within the very institutions responsible for enforcing rights.

And this intersection is no longer theoretical: Does AI governance strengthen fairness, preserve independence, and expand access — or does it undermine their very foundations?

From experimentation to embedded use

Across jurisdictions, AI is often framed as an administrative tool that can handle basic tasks such as transcription, translation, case triage, and more, as well as providing analytics to identify delays or inefficiencies.

These applications respond to real constraints, such as overburdened courts, limited resources, and persistent backlogs. Similarly, dispute resolution platforms are integrating AI to guide users through processes and structure negotiations.

However, this formal adoption tells only part of the story. AI is also entering justice systems informally. Judges, clerks, and lawyers are independently using general-purpose tools in their daily work, often without guidance, oversight, or a clear grasp of the tools’ implications for security, confidentiality, and discoverability. As one expert observed: “Shadow AI is already happening.”

The absence of governance does not prevent AI use; and, in fact, it may encourage misuse. This shadow AI simply pushes AI usage into unstructured and unmonitored areas — the risk then becomes not adoption itself, but uneven adoption that evolves beyond institutional control.

It’s no longer a question that justice systems need to engage with AI; however, that engagement has be done deliberately and in a way that allows governance frameworks to keep pace without constraining beneficial use.

While it’s no longer a question that justice systems need to engage with AI, that engagement has be done deliberately and in a way that allows governance frameworks to keep pace without constraining beneficial use.

Automating inefficiency?

Efficiency is often the entry point for AI in justice systems; but efficiency alone is not reform. And misapplied efficiency can often lead to its direct opposite: a scramble to repair broken systems or to plug technology and personnel gaps.

Many current AI initiatives remain isolated pilots — layered onto existing processes rather than integrated into broader institutional strategy. Without addressing underlying structural constraints like fragmented data, inconsistent procedures, and uneven infrastructure, AI risks automating inefficiency rather than resolving it. And without strong data governance, infrastructure, and institutional alignment, even well-designed AI tools will underperform or produce unreliable outcomes.

That means that efforts to tightly control AI deployment without addressing these foundational issues risk focusing on symptoms rather than the system itself. AI should not function as a parallel modernization effort; rather, it must align with broader justice system reform.

Clearly, the most consequential questions arise when AI tools begin to shape legal reasoning or outcomes. And while there is broad agreement that AI can support judicial work without replacing independent human judgment, in practice, however, the boundary between assistance and influence is not always clear.

Even administrative tools can shape decisions. Summaries may omit nuance, or suggested language can influence framing. Over time, reliance on system outputs can create subtle forms of dependency. In fact, this dynamic is compounded by what has been described as the myth of verification — the assumption that human oversight alone is sufficient. In reality, time constraints, cognitive bias, and limited technical fluency can make meaningful review difficult. And automation bias affects even experienced decision-makers.

Overall, these boundaries require deliberate definition. Left on their own, AI tools and their outputs will be shaped implicitly through practice rather than through principled governance.

Design determines outcome

Institutional capacity will determine how these dynamics play out because digital maturity varies widely across jurisdictions. Some courts operate advanced platforms, while others remain largely paper based. In lower-resource environments, infrastructure may not support even basic digitization. In more advanced systems, adoption may outpace governance.

Yet, one consistent challenge among all jurisdictions is reliance on external vendors. Without internal expertise, institutions risk adopting tools that meet technical requirements but fall short of rule-of-law standards, particularly in transparency, accountability, and data governance.

Justice systems are not neutral environments for technology adoption — they are the operational core of the rule of law.

Addressing this gap requires more than a procurement issue. It requires institutional literacy. Judges and administrators need a working understanding of how AI systems function, where risks arise, and how to evaluate them. Training efforts are underway, but scaling this capacity will take time. In the interim, governance gaps will persist and attempts to compensate for these gaps through overly rigid restrictions may limit adoption but do little to build the institutional capability required for effective oversight.

From adoption to accountability

Clearly, AI will not improve justice systems by default; rather its impact will be determined by institutional design, which includes clear boundaries on use, transparency around deployment, safeguards to protect independence, and mechanisms for oversight and accountability. It also requires alignment with broader justice system goals of efficiency, fairness, and accessibility.

Yet, justice systems are not neutral environments for technology adoption. They are the operational core of the rule of law. Their legitimacy depends on trust, which in turn requires accountability.

This makes the path forward not purely a technical one. It requires institutional self-assessment, alignment with human rights frameworks, and collaboration across policymakers, courts, technologists, and the public. The measure of success will not be the sophistication of the tools deployed, but whether they strengthen the system’s core functions of impartiality, accessibility, and trust.

AI tools can support those goals, of course, but only if they are designed into justice systems from the outset.

You can find other installments ofĚýour Scaling Justice blog series here

Key insights:

• • • Consensus among AI systems is not the same as correctness — Agreement between AI models often signals shared blind spots, not truth; and AI errors can be highly correlated across instances and even across model families.

    • Productive disagreement must be explicitly designed into AI advisors — Multi‑agent AI systems are most effective when they are intentionally built to preserve meaningful disagreement, not just to synthesize a unified response.

    • The future of AI advisory mirrors long‑standing human decision-making — Modern multi‑agent AI design has a long historical lineage; yet, across all examples, the same principle holds: The best decision systems are engineered for internal conflict.

In this new two‑part blog series, we explore why AI works best as an executive advisor not by delivering consensus answers, but by being intentionally designed to identify, preserve, and productively leverage disagreement. In the first part, we saw why a single AI advisor is structurally vulnerable; now, in this concluding part, we look at what happens when you design disagreement on purpose.

The academic evidence for multi-agent AI systems has been building rapidly, and the most important findings aren’t about the power of agreement. They’re about the danger of it.

In February, , a product that sends every query simultaneously to three frontier AI models (Claude, GPT, and Gemini) then uses a fourth chair model to synthesize a unified answer. The product’s value proposition isn’t that three models produce a better answer than one; rather, it’s that divergence between models is treated as a signal. When models converge, that indicates confidence, but when they diverge, that indicates the user should slow down.

Studies have borne this out. Multi-agent debate compared to single-model generation, and researchers at the University of Göttingen found that , with their voting protocols outperforming other decision structures. However, potentially the most important finding cuts against the hype. In a 2026 paper, , the authors demonstrated that AI model errors are highly correlated both within and across model families. When three instances of the same model agree, it doesn’t mean they’re right, rather it means they may share the same blind spots. Aggregation increases consensus faster than it increases truth.

The future of AI-assisted executive decision-making may look less like a single brilliant oracle and more like a room full of advisors that may often disagree because that’s how the best decisions have always been made.

This finding cuts both ways for practitioners like ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę enterprise architect Zafar Khan and his two AI advisors, Adrian and Elara, that were built on the same underlying model but differentiated by their analytical frameworks rather than their architecture. The divergence they produce is real and visible. For example, the analysis the two AI advisors did on a deal undertaken by Eaton Corp., in particular generated genuinely different conclusions because the two advisors were oriented towards different priorities.

Yet, research suggests that same-model divergence, while effective, has a ceiling. Prompt-driven personas can ask different questions, but they share the same training, the same blind spots, and the same failure modes. Khan is candid about this, noting that his current system is in the “very early” stages and is not a finished product. The value right now, he says, isn’t that Adrian and Elara are equivalent to truly independent minds, it’s that even a first-generation version of structured disagreement can identify insights that a single advisor would miss. It’s a large stride rather than an arrival at the ultimate destination.

The future of AI advisory is in the past

The principle behind this diverging analysis concept isn’t new. Indeed, it might be one of the oldest ideas in institutional design, rediscovered independently by many institutions that had to make decisions under uncertainty. Socrates built a philosophical method around cross-examination; Pope Sixtus V formalized opposition by creating the Devil’s Advocate in 1587; and the RAND Corporation operationalized it during the Cold War with the Delphi Method, using structured anonymous iteration to prevent groupthink.

The through-line across two millennia is simply that the best decision-making systems don’t minimize disagreement, rather, they engineer it.

Today, the developer community now uses production-grade code review tools to assign architecture, security, and functionality analysis to separate agents, using majority voting for routine decisions and unanimous consent for irreversible ones. And what Khan has built and what Perplexity, Microsoft’s Agent Framework, and a growing ecosystem of multi-agent tools are now pursuing, are the latest iterations of the simple concept: Internal conflict is not a system failure, it is a design requirement.

The question is no longer “whether”

Khan’s vision for what should sit at the decision table is specific — five AI advisors spanning technology, finance, regulation, workforce, and geopolitical risk. Each applies its own analytical framework, with the human executive responsible for integration and final judgment. The guardrails are three: i) transparency about what data the system uses; ii) verifiability that sources are legitimate; and iii) human accountability at every decision point.

“The race towards AGI [artificial general intelligence] is moving faster,” Khan acknowledges, adding that the human needs to be in the loop in order to bring AI to work in a governance fashion and an ethical way.

“I want to show the interaction between human and AI advisor, how they’re thinking through the problem together,” he explains. “Where the human judgment covers the analysis and where it diverges.” In other words, when the AI advisors agree, that’s your green light. When they diverge, that’s the conversation your board should be having.

The future of AI-assisted executive decision-making may look less like a single brilliant oracle and more like a room full of advisors that may often disagree because that’s how the best decisions have always been made. The technology to build that room now exists; however, the question is whether today’s leaders have the discipline to listen when the room argues back.

For more on AI transformation in the professional services market, you can download the Thomson Reuters Institute’sĚý2026 AI in Professional Services Report

Key highlights:

• • • AI simulation can replace the “repetition loop” used to train junior lawyers — AI is taking over the repetitive work junior lawyers used to learn from and replacing it with simulation-based learning.

• • • Three design pillars can determine whether AI simulations will work — The best simulation tools are built around three pillars: clear learning goals, realistic unpredictability, and specific feedback.

• • • AI simulation tools offer law students spaces to fail — For law students and junior lawyers, simulation creates a rare low-risk space to practice, make mistakes, and improve.

For decades, junior lawyers learned by doing. Assignments landed on their desks, senior lawyers marked them up, and judgment accumulated through repetition and proximity to experience. Now, as AI takes over these foundational tasks, that repetition loop is breaking down, according to , which underscores how junior lawyers are being thrust into higher-level advisory work far earlier in their careers. Unfortunately, this is occurring before they have developed the instinctive gut feel for judgement that only comes from years of experience.

and , co-founders of legal training platform , and , Executive Director at the Stanford Law School’s (liftlab) all say they see the need to build new educational programs and pedagogical tools. And these learning capabilities must be heavily focused on the specific skill sets that underlie the judgment of drafting and the judgment of taking a deposition, explains Dr. Ma.

AI and the cultivation of legal judgment

The broken repetition loop demands a substitute that underscored the implicit teaching of legal judgement in the early years of practice. Simulation-based learning is the profession’s most promising answer, and the idea predates AI.

Moot courts and mock trials have existed for years because of the stark difference between understanding something in theory and executing under pressure. Historically, however, simulation was costly as delivering experiential learning to small groups required significant expertise and time from multiple individuals. AI changes that equation by offering scalability at a level the legal profession never could access before. Indeed, role-playing is one of the greatest strengths of AI models, says Dr. Ma.

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows.

Legal judgment has always been difficult to define and nearly impossible to teach directly. Partners describe it as instinct or as something accumulated after enough transactions, depositions, and hard experience. AI simulation — if designed with enough precision to force real decision-making — can create the repetitive environments in which that judgment can be developed.

These AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: i) clear learning goals; ii) realistic unpredictability; and iii) specific feedback.

First, a rubric tied to clear learning objectives needs to be established. According to AltaClaro’s Liles, this rubric must be paired with a feedback loop that’s anchored to specific skills and expected judgment calls. AltaClaro has been offering online, simulation-based training to the Am Law 200 for almost a decade and uses AI-powered feedback in its simulation tools.

Second, realistic unpredictability needs to be built in. For example, AltaClaro’s uses a lightly scripted framework that gives the witness a fixed truth and significant freedom within it, offering a scenario with enough unpredictability to force adaptation. This non-determinism makes AI outputs difficult to control in some contexts and becomes the source of realistic pressure in a simulation. The tool currently covers commercial and employment litigation deposition simulations, and there are plans to roll out other deposition scenarios, including IP, securities, mass tort/product liability, and antitrust over the next six months.

To further enable adaptation, Dr. Ma and her team inserted personality dials into liftlab’s deposition simulation tool. Instructors can push a witness toward the extreme of forgetfulness, evasiveness, or hostility. The user must find a path through behavior that no script could have anticipated. Repetitive use of these tools allows the instinctual learning of legal judgement. Similarly, DepoSim, which uses as its underlying engine, also allows for adjustments in witness cooperation or hostility and the opposing counsel’s aggressiveness.

Finally, feedback is the third critical design pillar. Both tools evaluate the user’s performance with feedback, which can include instances in which the attorney held their ground, or in which a vague answer was allowed to slide, or when an opening to gain ground was missed entirely. Feedback of this specificity is what allows simulations to most mimic practice and transform repetition into learning.

AI simulation tools work best when designed around three pillars: clear learning goals; realistic unpredictability; and specific feedback.

Of course, user experience is the design element that determines whether all of the above actually gets used. Shayesteh describes the range of ways the DepoSim tool is being used in practice to teach judgement. For example, one litigation chair ran the tool as a live teaching demonstration in front of 500 attorneys and paused to narrate decisions as events unfolded on screen. Also, mentor-mentee pairs are using the tool’s embedded feedback as the foundation for coaching conversations; and associates with upcoming real depositions are using the tool for targeted preparation.

AI simulations in law schools

The traditional dynamic in legal education, in which law schools teach lawyers how to think, and law firms teach lawyers how to practice is no longer tenable as AI-enabled legal practice grows. Dr. Ma says she sees simulation fitting naturally into existing experiential courses such as negotiation workshops, trial advocacy classes, and mediation seminars, serving as a between-class practice layer.

Of course, the greatest benefit of AI simulations in law schools is the creation of safe spaces for students to fail, Dr. Ma notes, describing how the law offers very few environments in which failure carries no consequences. Encountering transactions that go wrong, learning to manage impossible witnesses, and experiencing negotiations that collapse in a controlled setting are invaluable experiences for future lawyers — and now they can be experienced through simulations.

Although signs of progress are visible across the profession, resistance remains entrenched. “The profession needs to wake up and look at training as a really core strategic piece of the [learning] process,” Lilies says, adding that without intentional, rubric-based simulation infrastructure, the default is handing associates a set of AI tools and pointing them toward the work. This approach produces productivity without judgment and will result in lawyers generating AI output without a full understanding of what makes it right or wrong.

As AI tools proliferate across legal workflows, legal education needs to transform in tandem. “Law schools have to embrace this to really prepare students for the world that is three to four years away, by giving them the opportunity to increase reps and receive feedback based on a structured rubric and framework,” explains Shayesteh. “It is the best gift you can give them.”

You can find more about the

Key insights:

• • • Real-time tax compliance has restructured the tax function — Dozens of nations now require structured invoice data in real time, with the EU mandating cross-border digital reporting by 2030. The traditional file-and-wait audit cycle is gone now, replaced by clearance regimes that can freeze multi-million-dollar invoices for nonconforming data.

    • Regulators have pulled ahead of the businesses they oversee — Tax authorities in mature CTC jurisdictions now arrive at audits with structured transaction data already processed by their own analytics. Government turnaround times that took months now take weeks, forcing multinational tax leaders to compress multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles to keep up.

    • The lessons travel beyond tax — There are two ways to lose this race: Outrun your own controls or surrender entirely. Both showed up in Las Vegas, and both will show up in every other regulated profession over the next decade.

LAS VEGAS — TheĚý sold out. A guest list that included tax directors from Amazon, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble, OpenAI’s tax department, the Big Four, ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę and every other major tax software provider in the market spent three days at the Aria with pool deck, casino floor, and restaurants worth lingering over all a few steps away.

The room had every reason to spend its evenings somewhere else other than a sunless conference room talking about tax. Yet almost no one did. They were too busy grappling with an arms race the corporate audit side had begun to suspect it was losing.

And it’s one they cannot afford to lose.

End of the traditional model

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade. By April, more than 60 jurisdictions have moved or are moving to continuous transaction controls. Italy and Hungary were early; Poland, France, Belgium, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and Singapore are now operational or imminent, and countries like Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates are on the way. The European Union has locked onto a 2030 deadline for cross-border real-time digital reporting and a 2035 backstop for harmonizing what’s left.

The traditional model — issue an invoice, file a return weeks later, audit when the auditor gets around to it — no longer exists in those jurisdictions. Tax authorities now see the transaction as it happens, validates it in structured form, and pre-fills the return on the taxpayer’s behalf.

What this new process has done to the tax function is fundamentally alter its structure in a way leaves practitioners reeling. The job used to be a craft of Excel, judgment, and institutional memory. Now, at the high end, it has become as much a data science problem as an accounting one.

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade.

Attendees at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar polled themselves on tooling, and the answers came back as a list of data pipelines that dozens of attendees seemed to favor: Alteryx, Power Platform, Snowflake, Databricks, Microsoft Fabric, & Palantir Foundry. These platforms are running agentic AI systems against historical filings, deploying validation agents to critique their own outputs, and using AI-driven image-to-text solutions to pull structured data out of state tax notices that never arrive in the same format twice. They are data integration pipelines in 15 minutes that would have sat in an IT queue for two months before being answered.

They have little choice as the stakes are far higher and the challenges far more demanding than they used to be. In a clearance regime, an invoice has no legal force until the tax authority returns its identifier. Did you submit the wrong VAT ID, malformed schema, or mismatched master data? Congratulations! Your invoice is rejected. That means the truck doesn’t move, the buyer doesn’t pay an invoice that may be in the millions of dollars and then the penalties stack on top. Italy, for instance, charges a fee of 70% of the disputed VAT.

And then there are the audits.

Outgunned

The audit isn’t an occasional event anymore. In government jurisdictions with mature continuous-transaction-control tax regimes, it is a conversation that started weeks before the auditor walked in, on data their analytics had already processed.

A speaker on a seminar panel led by Deloitte and ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę described the dynamic plainly: Tax authorities in those jurisdictions have arrived at audits already knowing more about the transactions than the companies and their in-house audit teams sitting across the table. Not because anyone is hiding anything, but because the data arrived at the tax authority in structured form, in real time, and the authority had run its analytics on it before the meeting was even on the calendar. One panelist said this represents “a shift from us preparing returns to us answering notices on the data that’s been shared.”

What the room kept circling around, however, was that regulators have not just kept pace with their counterparties, they’ve now pulled ahead. Singapore, one panelist noted, is doing more with AI than even major companies. Indeed, government turnaround times that used to take months are now closing in weeks, which is forcing multinational tax leaders to compress their multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles — not because they want to but because their counterparties already had.

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales.

This asymmetry is structural, and that is what makes it an arms race rather than a transition. There is no version of this dynamic in which the company being audited wins by being more careful, more thorough, or more well-prepared at the end of the quarter. The advantage now accrues to the side with the fastest and cleanest pipelines, that runs the smartest AI, and that understands the way these increasingly complex systems interact. Increasingly, that winning side is the government. And, more alarming, this isn’t just a problem for this particular industry — tax just happened to get here first. However, it’s coming for everyone.

Two ways to lose

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales. The first is to outrun your own controls. AI coding tools that let a tax analyst build a working data integration pipeline in 15 minutes are genuinely valuable; they also let that same analyst deploy something nobody else has reviewed, documented, or knows how to maintain. An OpenAI panelist conceded the point when an audience member asked about the security implications of vibe coding — clearly, a new capability is also a new problem.

The second way to lose is harder to talk about. One panelist described, to attendees’ general dismay, hearing of companies that have given up on compliance entirely — instead, they pad their numbers with a safety margin and treat the eventual audit as the cheaper of the two costs. The panel recoiled — one member responded with a flat “Do not do this.” However, the anecdote landed because it isn’t theoretical. When the gap between what regulators can see and what your team can produce becomes wide enough, surrender starts to look rational.

Playing to win

Of course, the attendees at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar were not surrendering. If they were, they’d have been at the pool deep into their third cocktail. Or they’d have been on the casino floor or were about to catch an afternoon show. Instead, day after day, the tables filled, the exhibit hall ran hot, and the room was buying, listening, and building.

The game has changed and the stakes have risen — and the room is dead set on playing to win.

You can find more ofĚýour coverage of Tax Executives Institute events here

Key insights:

• • • AI is changing how lawyers develop judgment and expertise — As AI takes over more legal tasks, firms must ensure that lawyers still gain the experience, reasoning skills, and confidence needed to become excellent practitioners.

    • Law firm leaders must redesign training for an AI-enabled profession — Beyond adopting AI, law firms need intentional systems for mentorship, feedback, workflow, and evaluation so AI supports lawyer development instead of weakening it.

    • The best firms will use AI to build better lawyers, not just faster work — Long-term success will depend on whether firms use AI to strengthen human judgment, critical thinking, and client service, rather than replacing them.

For law firms looking to deliver greater value, AI taps into an obvious opportunity to enhance efficiency, accelerate work product delivery, and reduce expenses. With clients as our guiding North Star — shaping our decisions and defining our purpose — this is an opportunity that we enthusiastically embrace.

It is tempting, however, to focus only on how AI is changing the way lawyers deliver legal services as legal teams today publicize their deployment of AI tools and track utilization rates. However, firm leaders also need to ask more fundamental questions: How is AI changing the way attorneys learn? Are the assumptions that we have historically made about how we gained expertise and judgment still accurate, or were we conflating causation with correlation? Fundamentally, what does it mean to be a great lawyer, and how will law firms like ours continue to create great lawyers?

A new model for learning

Law firm leaders are facing a far deeper challenge than driving efficiency through technological adoption. We are now tasked with that produce excellent, client-centered attorneys in an environment in which many traditional development pathways are being transformed.

The core apprenticeship model for lawyer development has existed for thousands of years. The case method of formal legal education — created around 1869 by Harvard Law School Prof. Christopher Langdell — is a relatively newer phenomenon, but it is hardly new. Roughly six generations of lawyers in the United States have been on the receiving end of the same basic inputs: Case-based instruction followed by apprenticeship, grounded in repetition and increasing complexity over time.

---

It is tempting, however, to focus only on how AI is changing the way lawyers deliver legal services. However, firm leaders also need to ask more fundamental questions.

We reasonably assume that this is how one learns to think like a lawyer — and how we move talented junior lawyers from 1Ls to senior, expert practitioners. The prevailing belief is that lawyers can only learn judgment by muscling through thousands of genuine problems and through the friction that comes from making and fixing mistakes. Yet, these beliefs are largely inferential. We know how we were educated and how we practice, and we know what resulted. We have evidence about the conditions under which expertise developed, but not definitive proof of causation.

With the advent of AI, truly understanding how we make exceptional lawyers matters enormously. Much of the time-consuming work associated with lawyer development can now be completed, or at least materially assisted, by various AI tools. If these tasks were simply an inefficient use of our time, then nothing much is lost. However, if those efforts were integral to developing legal judgment, then their disappearance creates the real risk that we are weakening the very capabilities upon which our profession depends.

We are, in other words, interfering with a developmental system without understanding which component parts are essential to retain.

Leadership in an AI age

That shift reframes the role of leadership. Leaders cannot simply roll out AI tools and tout productivity gains — to do so risks losing essential developmental opportunities to gain judgment and expertise and produces lawyers that are little more than a set of hands for AI systems. Yet, ignoring the extraordinary capabilities of AI is not an option, either. Instead, leaders must become systems design architects, structuring legal work, training, and feedback in ways that preserve the conditions most likely to produce exceptional, client-centered lawyers.

To do this, leaders in which AI supplements but does not replace effortful thinking, creates opportunities for reflection and feedback, and ensures that lawyers remain active participants in reasoning rather than passive editors of machine-generated output. All the while, law firm leaders also must create environments of trust and connection, without which great legal teams cannot be built.

Clearly, AI introduces both risks and opportunities into our historical education and development models. Beautifully crafted AI work product can create the illusion of competence but may create scenarios in which lawyers fail to grasp fully the underlying reasoning. Over time, this can lead to cognitive offloading and shallow understanding.

If attorneys rely excessively on AI tools, they risk becoming mere managers of AI-generated outputs. Unless human expertise and judgment are fully integrated with the AI tools, those outputs run the risk of being homogenized. AI can also create fear for the future, a condition under which it is nearly impossible to learn, and which would reduce human engagement from which essential observational learning occurs. Without internalizing knowledge and gaining genuine expertise, future lawyers may never learn the fundamental judgment needed to solve clients’ most complex problems.

At the same time, AI deployed well can become . AI can play devil’s advocate, create mock negotiation simulations, identify examples created by the profession’s greatest advocates, and offer access to data sets far too large for human review. Well-trained, bespoke AI tools can also supply immediate, tailored feedback on work product — something universally seen as essential to growth but too often in short supply.

We may learn that expertise can be developed with AI-enabled tools far faster than our traditional model has suggested, given that few legal work environments have ever been able to provide feedback with the speed and frequency that AI could supply.

Indeed, we may learn that expertise can be developed with AI-enabled tools far faster than our traditional model has suggested, given that few legal work environments have ever been able to provide feedback with the speed and frequency that AI could supply. AI should be able to expand access to guidance previously limited by time, ego, and hierarchy, effectively supplementing traditional mentorship structures.

These tensions point to a central conclusion: Leaders, and not AI alone, will determine the future of the legal profession. Strong leaders will engage deeply with the question of how we create great lawyers, critically examining to gaining expertise, creativity, passion, and judgment. They will simultaneously challenge the notion that how the last six generations learned is the only way to learn, using AI as a catalyst for reconsidering how we can become even better at our craft.

The new rules of professional growth

Some design elements already seem essential. First, legal work should be performed in a manner that preserves active, deep thinking. This may impact the sequencing of when and how AI is used, and whether AI serves as a reviewer or a starting point. Second, legal education and development should emphasize the importance of critical thinking, of understanding the questions to be answered, the rule of law, and the meaning of justice. Indeed, attorneys should be judged on their work quality, not just quantity, with emphasis on sound judgment and nuanced, client-centered advice. Because you get what you measure, evaluation and compensation systems should overtly take expertise, creativity, and deep analytical skills into account.

Third, legal teams should be purposeful about developing the most human of skills — connectivity, trustworthiness, integrity, and resilience. This inevitably means spending time with other people, not just machines. Finally, organizations must maintain robust feedback loops, ensuring that human mentorship remains central even as AI tools become more prevalent.

At its core, this is a question of professional identity. The goal is not simply to produce lawyers who can use AI to deliver passable work products, but to develop lawyers whose judgment, adaptability, and commitment to client service are enhanced by new capabilities. AI has the potential to elevate the profession by enabling deeper analysis, access to greater knowledge, and more efficient, responsive service.

Law firm leaders can determine which of these futures emerge in their organizations. The pace of change is breathtaking, requiring us to move at light speed while answering truly fundamental questions. Leaders must embrace AI with optimism, but not uncritically, and build systems in which AI serves as a tool for learning and growth rather than a substitute for human development.

In the age of AI, we can continue to think like lawyers and be even better ones.

You can find out more about the challenges law firms face with

Key insights:

• • • AI as a design decision, not just a tech add-on — AI gives us a chance to rethink the “machinery of justice” and redesign it for today’s needs rather than simply automating existing systems and processes.

    • AI to expand access and usability, without replacing judgment — The most promising value is in reducing friction for litigants and helping people navigate the process.

    • Progress requires disciplined, court-by-court experimentation — We can start small, build AI literacy, set leadership tone, invite diverse perspectives, and address legal and ethical issues as design constraints, not deal-breakers.

Today, interest in AI across the judiciary is clearly growing, but most discussions are still constrained by certain fears:

• • • Fear that AI will replace human judgment — This concern is legitimate, but it focuses almost entirely on endpoints. Judging (and the systems around it) involve far more than final decisions. Focusing only on high-stakes endpoints misses much of what judges and courts do day-to-day.
    • Fear of hallucinations, errors, and bias — These are also legitimate fears, but there are ways to mitigate these risks, which are not new. The source may be different, but we have long needed to protect against errors, bias, and misstated law.
    • Fear of change — This is a difficult one to overcome, but a desire to protect the status quo sometimes presupposes that the system as it exists today is working exactly as it should. It isn’t. At least not for everyone.

I’d like to see the narrative shift from fear of AI in courts, to the possibilities of AI in courts. AI presents a rare opportunity to upgrade the machinery of justice.

Justice as machinery

Most of us were taught to think about justice as an outcome, something the system delivers. However, justice is also the machinery we use to deliver it, and that machinery is a set of design choices. Rules, procedures, forms, hearings, briefs — we crafted these frameworks to manage conflict and produce decisions that feel fair and legitimate. Like most frameworks, they reflect the era in which they were built.

Once we start thinking about justice as something to be designed rather than simply delivered, the access-to-justice problem looks different. The question is no longer how to get more of the current system to more people; rather, it’s whether the machinery itself is still fit for its purpose.

Reimagining the machinery

The machinery has been redesigned before. Justice was once deeply human because it had to be: Law lived in minds, judges traveled from town to town, decisions were announced aloud. That system was more human and personal, but it was limited, exclusionary, and fickle. It was dependent on local norms and personal relationships. It yielded uneven outcomes.

The first great upgrade was writing, and more importantly, the printing press. It brought stability and protected litigants from arbitrary local power. But it also entrenched a new kind of authority. Yet, understanding it required literacy, training, and expertise. A professional bar emerged and ordinary people were pushed further from the center of their own disputes. Then came the digital age. It optimized the process and made more information available. But many people feel overwhelmed by the deluge of information and experience modern justice as a series of obstacles.

Does AI present a different kind of opportunity? Could it deliver an upgrade that finally closes the gap rather than widens it? I’m optimistic that the answer is yes, but our design choices matter and we have to be willing to reimagine justice from the ground up.

What if every litigant had access to an AI agent that could help them navigate forms, understand the process, and translate legalese? What if AI could take messy human stories and translate them into structured information for the court? What if courts offered AI-assisted dispute resolution in the early stages of litigation or at key milestones during the litigation? Can AI make navigating the legal system feel less like data entry and more like a conversation?

We’re not ready for giant leaps, and we can’t ignore the open questions: Unauthorized practice of law issues, privilege and work product implications, the reliability of AI-assisted work product, and more — but these are not dead ends. They’re current design constraints to account for, and they shouldn’t keep us from reimagining what’s possible.

Where do we start?

The institution of justice will not be redesigned overnight, and there is no central authority to drive change. Rather, it will be redesigned court by court. The principles below apply broadly and reflect a starting point for thinking about AI as a design decision, not just a technology decision.

Set the tone from the topĚý

Fear can be paralyzing, and in courts it often is. If judges and court staff are afraid to experiment, nothing moves. We need environments in which thoughtful, controlled experimentation is encouraged and supported. When more people are engaged in testing ideas and thinking about how to improve their processes, the likelihood of meaningful innovation and redesign increases.

Court leadership can create that space by setting a vision, encouraging responsible experimentation, and supporting innovative mindsets.

Build AI literacy

Encouraging experimentation is an important first step, but it can create risk if not paired with the right training and education. AI requires new competencies in prompting, guardrail development, output verification, bias awareness, iteration, context framing, documentation for audibility, fit-for-purpose judgment, and more. As tools evolve, education should evolve, too. Agentic AI, for example, will require a different set of skills and a different type of supervision than we’re accustomed to now.

For more information about toolkits and resources around AI in courts, visit

Judges and court staff do not need to become technologists, but they need enough training and education to ask the right questions, spot the right issues, and use the tools responsibly.

Rethink the systems, not just the tools

This one is critical. Currently, most conversations about AI focus on use cases, such as whether AI can assist with research or automate certain workflows. These are good questions, but the tougher questions will lead to bigger rewards. Where are our pain points? What can we do better? Which policies and processes are essential, and which have never been re-examined? Which parts of the machinery were built for a different era and have outlived their usefulness? And perhaps most importantly, who is the system failing?

We shouldn’t start with the technology and look for places to apply it. We should start with the people we serve and ask how the technology can help us serve them better.

Invite diverse perspectives

The strongest ideas emerge from the push and pull of different viewpoints. Court leadership can form committees that bring together innovators and skeptics, technologists and traditionalists, those who are excited and those who are concerned. We also need perspectives across different court functions. AI is not something to hand off to IT departments. They are essential partners, but the questions AI raises go far beyond any one department.

Outside perspectives are helpful, too. Many people across the country are already approaching this work with a multidisciplinary lens, and courts can draw on that experience.

Finally, remember to start small

It’s easy to create so much process and deliberation that progress slows. We need concrete steps that move us forward, however incrementally. Start with policies and data governance, then move to small, targeted pilots that can address low-hanging fruit. Small adjustments can help teams become comfortable with change; and early wins build confidence and create momentum.

Closing thoughts

Justice has been redesigned before, and it is on the brink of being redesigned again. AI will reshape courts whether or not we participate. However, as the people who know the system from the inside and want it to work for everyone, we may be in the best position to guide the next upgrade. The chance to build something more equitable, more accessible, and better designed for today’s world does not come around often, let’s not miss it.

You can find more insights from Judge Braswell here