Paul Lee, co-founder and CEO of Patlytics, joins Greg Lambert to explain how an AI platform built specifically for intellectual property work is changing the patent lifecycle. Patlytics supports workflows spanning patent drafting, prior art analysis, office action responses, portfolio management, litigation readiness, and claim-chart preparation. Lee reports that the company now works with roughly 55 percent of the Am Law 100 and hundreds of corporations across technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and other patent-intensive industries.

Lee traces Patlytics’ origins to his experience as a venture capitalist and more than 100 conversations with patent attorneys. Those interviews exposed a practice filled with expensive, labor-intensive processes, from drafting detailed patent specifications to constructing claim charts for litigation. His interest also grew from the Apple and Samsung patent battles, the IP expenses faced by venture-backed companies, and conversations with Patlytics co-founder Arthur Jen and former Latham & Watkins patent litigator Bob Steinberg.

The conversation turns to Patlytics’ work involving USPTO patent examiners and the broader effect of placing AI on both sides of the examination process. While confidentiality limits the details Lee discusses, he identifies quality and the examination backlog as two areas where specialized technology offers meaningful assistance. He also contrasts Patlytics with broad legal AI platforms such as Harvey and Legora, arguing that patent professionals need tools designed for the precision, technical detail, and specialized workflows of IP practice.

Human judgment stays central to Lee’s vision. Patent attorneys still own the work product, approve key decisions, and remain responsible when an AI-generated analysis falls short. At the same time, client expectations continue to rise. Clients want faster work, higher quality, and lower costs, while law firms need sustainable margins. Lee sees flat-fee arrangements and more predictable workflows as one route toward sharing the “AI dividend” between clients and their outside counsel. In-house teams also gain more capacity for infringement analysis, patent-portfolio reviews during M&A, cross-licensing strategy, and litigation preparation.

Looking ahead, Lee describes a striking change in attitude among patent professionals, from widespread skepticism a year ago to broad optimism today. His crystal-ball concern is less about whether lawyers will adopt AI and more about whether its economics will hold together. As free experimentation gives way to consumption-based pricing, firms will need to measure the value of each workflow and avoid spending $50,000 in AI costs on a $5,000 matter. Token maxing had its moment. ROI gets the next meeting invitation.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

Transcript

Continue Reading Patlytics and the Patent AI Race: Paul Lee on USPTO Workflows, Human Judgment, and the AI Dividend

What happens when you separate elite legal talent from the traditional law firm structure? This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Manuel Deó, co-founder and co-CEO of Ambar Partners, about a model designed around senior independent lawyers, flexible capacity, enterprise technology, and client choice. Deó explains why he and co-founder Rosa Espín did not set out to replace Big Law, but instead to address a gap between permanent in-house hiring and traditional outside counsel.

At the center of Ambar’s model is a simple idea: legal demand comes in different shapes, and the delivery model should match the problem. Deó describes how Ambar gives lawyers control over the clients, projects, fees, and schedules they take on, while giving clients greater visibility into cost and the individual lawyers doing the work. He also discusses Ambar’s recent Chambers recognition and argues that the term “alternative” is starting to lose some of its usefulness as clients grow more comfortable assembling legal services from a wider range of providers.

Deó walks through what Ambar calls its legal operating system, built around belonging, business, backbone, and badge. The model combines a professional community with business development, compliance, contracting, billing, technology, and institutional credibility for independent lawyers and specialist boutiques. Ambar’s public materials describe a shared technology environment that includes tools such as Harvey, Microsoft Copilot, Legora, and other legal technology products. The goal, according to Deó, is to give independent lawyers access to the infrastructure associated with a large firm without requiring them to give up professional independence.

The conversation also turns to AI, knowledge, and professional judgment. Deó argues that legal knowledge is becoming more abundant while judgment grows more valuable. He describes Ambar’s work on “expert twins,” where approved knowledge, prior work, playbooks, and experience associated with an individual lawyer form a trusted layer for AI-assisted work. That emphasis on institutional knowledge and permissions echoes a broader trend across legal AI, where vendors are increasingly focused on connecting AI systems to trusted internal work product and organizational context.

Finally, Deó offers a broader view of where legal delivery is heading. He sees legal departments assembling teams dynamically from in-house lawyers, traditional firms, independent specialists, boutiques, managed services, and AI agents based on the needs of a particular matter. Instead of asking which firm to hire, clients increasingly have reason to ask what combination of people, technology, expertise, and risk structure best fits the work. For Deó, the future belongs less to a single dominant delivery model and more to legal departments acting as orchestrators of capability.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

LINKS

Transcript

Continue Reading Beyond the Law Firm Pyramid: Manuel Deó on Ambar, Fractional Legal Talent, and the Future of Legal Delivery

For millions of people, an everyday legal dispute never justifies the cost of a lawyer or a private mediator, no matter how much the outcome matters to them. Judge Victoria Wood saw that problem over and over during her years on the Napa County Superior Court bench. This week, Wood joins Judicaid Chief Strategy Officer Valerie Clemen to explain how those years led to Judicaid, an AI-assisted mediation platform built to help people resolve everyday disputes before time, expense, and emotion push them deeper into litigation.

Wood traces Judicaid’s origins to two problems she kept running into as a judge and mediator. Traditional settlement conferences arrive late in a case, after the parties have spent real money and dug into their positions. Then there are the lower-value landlord-tenant, contractor, neighbor, probate, and small-claims disputes where professional mediation rarely pencils out at all. Wood puts a number on the access problem. The State Bar of California’s 2024 Justice Gap Study, released in 2025, found that Californians received no legal help, or inadequate help, for 85 percent of their civil legal problems. Judicaid aims at a slice of that gap by giving people an earlier and cheaper chance to communicate and negotiate.

Clemen walks Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer through Judicaid’s “shuttle-style” mediation process. Each participant talks privately with an AI mediator named Jude, so the two sides never have to speak to each other directly. Jude gathers each side’s account of the dispute, identifies priorities and possible settlement terms, and moves between the participants while filtering out insults, anger, and inflammatory language. If the parties find common ground, the platform prepares a proposed settlement for review and electronic signature. Wood is careful about one boundary throughout the conversation. Jude is a facilitative mediator, and it stays away from evaluating legal rights. It will not decide who is legally correct, predict who will win, or give legal advice.

The conversation then turns to Judicaid’s pilot with Napa County Superior Court, and the role courts could play in expanding AI-assisted dispute resolution. In the court model, a court subscribes to the service and hands litigants’ access through a QR code, with no integration into the court’s technology systems. The pilot has already surfaced a behavioral lesson. Offering mediation as an optional service does not mean parties will use it, and Wood and Clemen see more potential where courts actively encourage or require litigants to attempt dispute resolution before proceeding. Language is another piece of the story, since Judicaid lets participants who speak different languages work through the same mediation without arranging multiple interpreters.

Wood and Clemen also see mediation as just the starting point. Wood uses the phrase “intelligent dispute resolution” for a broader category of AI-assisted tools covering mediator proposals, parent coordination, and other structured approaches to conflict. The bigger ambition is a change in habits, where people reach for structured communication and settlement before a disagreement hardens into a lawsuit. Clemen boils that aspiration down to three words she hopes become part of the vocabulary of everyday disputes: “Just Judicate it.”

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

 

LINKS

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer (00:00)
Hi, I’m Marlene Gebauer from The Geek in Review, and this week we’re talking with Judge Victoria Wood and Chief Strategy Officer Valerie Clemen from Judicaid. But first up, here’s a word from our great sponsor and partners at Legal Technology Hub.

Marlene Gebauer (00:13)
I have Sam Moore here from Legal Technology Hub. He’s going to tell us about AI governance from the advisory side.

Sam Moore (00:19)
Thank you. Good to see you again. Well, in the advisory team at Legal Tech Hub, we’ve been having a lot of conversations with clients about AI governance. Now, most law firms and departments have at least an AI policy of some kind, and there are some broad standards starting to emerge. A trend we’re seeing at the moment is a shift away from policies written in 2023 and 2024, which largely stated what you couldn’t do, and toward a more informative approach, which

Marlene Gebauer (00:37)
Okay.

Sam Moore (00:47)
defines different risk categories and

Marlene Gebauer (00:48)
You…

Sam Moore (00:49)
makes distinctions between routine, low-risk use of AI and other more substantial use cases. I think that’s appropriate for where we are, and it’s also what clients are coming to expect from their advisors. But one of the bigger challenges we’re seeing right now is how you express an AI use policy in such a way that any member of your legal team could explain it to a client. I think that’s still a big challenge for the industry.

Marlene Gebauer (00:55)
So, okay.

Sam Moore (01:17)
And I don’t think clients are all that happy if their attorney says, “I’ll have to get back to you about that,” because the attorney is probably using AI day-to-day. So they should be able to explain the policy themselves. How else do you know they’re complying with it? We’re doing some interesting work at the moment helping law firms and law departments take those first-version AI use policies that are very much “thou shalt not”

Marlene Gebauer (01:18)
So…

Sam Moore (01:43)
and turn them into more readable, appropriate governance positions that inform the conversation with clients. If anyone wants to find out more about our advisory services, they can find me or Cheryl Wilson Griffin on LinkedIn, or they can visit https://legaltechnologyhub.com.

Marlene Gebauer (02:01)
Thank you, Sam. I mean, it is really important to have AI policy in plain language so people understand it.

Sam Moore (02:07)
Absolutely.

Marlene Gebauer (02:15)
Welcome to The Geek in Review, the podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert (02:22)
And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer (02:24)
Today we’re exploring whether artificial intelligence can help address one of the justice system’s most persistent problems, resolving everyday disputes without months of delay, escalating costs, or procedures that ordinary people struggle to navigate.

Greg Lambert (02:39)
Yeah, and to help us do that, our guests today are the Honorable Victoria Wood, a retired judge from Napa County Superior Court and founder and CEO of Judicaid. Joining Judge Wood is Valerie Clemen, Judicaid’s Chief Strategy Officer. Judicaid is an online, AI-assisted mediation platform designed to help people resolve disputes privately, affordably, and without first filing a case.

Marlene Gebauer (03:08)
Judge Wood and Valerie, welcome to The Geek in Review.

Valerie Clemen (03:12)
Thank you for having us.

Vickie Wood (03:12)
Thank you. Happy to be here.

Marlene Gebauer (03:16)
Judge Wood, Judicaid grew out of what you witnessed during your years on the bench in Napa County. What recurring problems convinced you that the traditional court and mediation systems were not adequately serving people with everyday disputes, and that technology could provide a better path?

Vickie Wood (03:34)
There were a few things. One of them, I’d say, is that I handled a lot of settlement conferences while I was sitting on the trial court bench, but usually those come very near trial, later in the case, when people are very entrenched.

Marlene Gebauer (03:50)
When the judge says, “You go in the other room and figure it out.”

Vickie Wood (03:54)
Yeah, yeah.

And they’ve already become very angered in their positions. They’ve already invested so much emotionally and financially, usually through attorneys’ fees, and it’s hard to get those settled. Sometimes that’s what it takes because people understand the dynamics and the finances, and they’re finally at their wits’ end and they’ll settle. But it comes at a cost. There may be families that could have had relationships saved if they could have talked earlier on and understood each other’s positions better.

So that’s one thing, the opportunity for earlier mediation or communication facilitation. For example, I handle a fair amount of probate disputes, and some people say probate disputes are essentially family law after someone dies. They’re highly emotional for lots of reasons that go back many years. But what very often happens is it seems like there’s a lot of money at stake, but by the time they go through the process and get to mediation, sometimes the entire amount is spent on fighting. And it’s really sad. People never thought that would be the case.

I often think to myself, boy, if I only could have been with these people earlier in the process and let them know what would likely happen if they continued down the litigation path. So that’s one of the things that inspired it. The other thing is that there is this broad swath of disputes that are lower value and really don’t justify the expense of resources for attorney representation or human mediators. But those disputes still mean a lot to people, even though they’re low-dollar-value. In fact, that’s the reason why I decided to go to law school, being in a very low-dollar-value dispute with a landlord who I felt had done us wrong, and I was gonna

Greg Lambert (05:56)
Ha ha.

Vickie Wood (05:57)
fight it. And we did sort of win, but boy, it took a lot of time.

But these cases mean a lot to people, and they don’t have the same access to alternative dispute resolution as higher-value cases. So that was the other problem I was looking to fix. In fact, there is a State Bar of California justice gap study that was recently released. It was a follow-up study from 2019, then redone in 2024, with those results coming out in 2025. They reflect, let me get this right, that Californians receive no legal help or inadequate legal help for 85% of their disputes.

And I thought that was astonishing.

Marlene Gebauer (06:59)
I wish I thought it was astonishing. It’s like, I…

Greg Lambert (06:59)
Yeah. Yeah. And…

Marlene Gebauer (07:03)
I think…

Greg Lambert (07:03)
I don’t think Californians are unique in this either.

Marlene Gebauer (07:06)
No, no.

Vickie Wood (07:07)
Yeah. So this was a California study, obviously, but that’s 85% of disputes where people don’t have help, don’t have adequate help, or they throw their arms up and say, “The justice system can’t help me.”

After the 2019 study, the California Judicial Council really made efforts to try to close this justice gap. The problem was that the results from 2024 showed things got worse, not better, despite their efforts. So that was striking to me as well.

When I left the bench and started my mediation practice and started studying and using AI, it came to me that there is probably a portion of these cases that could benefit from what AI and LLM technology can do. That’s how Judicaid was born. I came up with the idea and the name, and then I happened to have a family member who is brilliant in the tech world. I mentioned it to him and he said, “I can build that for you.” And he said, “That will be easy.”

So, more than a year later…

Greg Lambert (08:27)
Yeah, I imagine in California…

Marlene Gebauer (08:28)
Words you like…

Greg Lambert (08:29)
Yeah. Well, it’s nice…

Marlene Gebauer (08:29)
to hear when you’re building tech, “It will be easy.”

Vickie Wood (08:32)
Yeah, yeah. “That’d be easy.”

Greg Lambert (08:33)
to be in California where you can’t swing a cat without hitting an engineer.

Vickie Wood (08:39)
Yeah, needless to say, it was not easy. It proved to be much more challenging, but he and the other part of the tech team did it. We’re really proud of the tech product, the rest of our product, and the platform, and excited to be getting it out in the world. So thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Greg Lambert (09:00)
So, Valerie, I want to jump into what Judicaid does and how it’s set up. But let’s start off with the user experience. Let’s take a typical user of the system, maybe two people having a landlord-tenant, contractor, or small-claims dispute.

What happens from the moment one person opens a matter on Judicaid until the parties either reach a settlement or determine that the mediation won’t resolve it? Can you walk us through the process of Judicaid?

Valerie Clemen (09:37)
Sure. The product just went live, I want to say, like six weeks ago. There are actually two aspects to it. There’s the consumer-facing version, where people can go on, pay $34.99, and start a mediation. But we also have the court-subscription version. Napa Superior Court currently has a pilot in its small-claims cases, so it’s a little different depending on which one we’re talking about.

Essentially, it’s a website, a standalone website. Parties can go there, create their own account, and put in some basic information about who the other side is and what the dispute is about. They never speak directly with the party they’re having a dispute with. An email goes to the other side and says, “We’re sorry you’re in a dispute. The other side would like to try to work this out with you. Please sign up as well.”

Hopefully they sign up if they’re willing to talk. Once they sign up, there’s literally an AI mediator that first goes to the initial party and goes back and forth asking questions like: When did this happen? What occurred? What is owed? Usually it’s over money or property. What attempts have there been to resolve it? What do you want today to resolve it? Once it has this information, it says, “Sit tight,” and then it goes to the other side.

When it says “sit tight,” people can be doing this on their phone, laptop, or tablet, and they don’t have to be online at the same time. It basically sends a message to each side when it’s their turn to speak to the AI mediator. It’s essentially the LLM, the AI engine, asking the questions and doing this.

So it goes to the other side and asks the same kinds of questions. What’s your version of the dispute? How do you feel about it? What’s your bottom line? What do you want? Once it has that, it starts going back and forth and tries to ask questions, get more information, and bring both sides to an agreement, hopefully in the end. It’ll keep going back and forth as long as it takes.

We’ve done a lot of pressure testing. Vickie and I are both attorneys, so we were like, what would a litigant say if you’re really upset? They might tell the AI mediator to F off and say, “You’re an idiot,” or whatever. So we did all of these things, and it’s great. It’ll hear these things and say, “I understand you’re upset, but what is your bottom line?” It’ll never go to the other side and say that this side insulted you. It’s very good at filtering

Marlene Gebauer (12:16)
Yeah.

Valerie Clemen (12:17)
and focusing on the problem and how to resolve it. Once it senses there’s an agreement, maybe there’s a payment plan worked out, it’ll prepare a draft agreement and send it to both sides and say, “Could you live with this? Is this what you want? Is this the agreement you want?” If both sides say yes, it creates an agreement, sends it to both sides through DocuSign, and you have a signed settlement agreement.

Greg Lambert (12:43)
Okay. Well, let me jump in on one question. What incentive does the counterparty have? I can see an incentive where I want to pay the $35 to get the subscription, but what’s the incentive on the other side to join this mediation?

Valerie Clemen (13:08)
Usually there’s a threat of a lawsuit. Like, “I’m gonna take you to small claims. I’m gonna call the Contractors State License Board.” If it’s a home-improvement project, there’s some threat because someone’s upset and wants something. So either you resolve it with that person or they’re gonna take the next step, which could have professional consequences. You might have to deal with litigation. You’re gonna be sued. In the world of Google, if you get sued by someone, somebody Googles your name and that shows up forever.

So the ability to resolve something before it turns into something worse would hopefully be motivation. But, you know, humanity…

Vickie Wood (13:46)
Yeah, but Greg, you ask a really good question because that is a sticking point. The platform generates an automatic email invite to the other side, and it says this person has either filed a lawsuit or is considering filing a lawsuit, but they would like to first try to resolve this peacefully.

You don’t lose any of your rights if you’re not able to resolve it. I personally would be very motivated to try that, knowing what it’s about, but what we’re finding is that a lot of people don’t even know exactly what mediation is, and they don’t know what they’re getting into. We try to highlight that this is completely confidential. The court’s never gonna know anything that is said. You preserve all your rights.

But that is a tricky part of this, and we’re hoping that if it gets out there and becomes more normalized, that’ll take away some of that reluctance. On the other side of the coin, I think people in general would really like to avoid going to court, seeing this person face to face, and talking to a judge. These are scary things. People are getting less used to talking to people face to face, so we’re hoping it’s going to play into the natural progression of how people would rather address conflict.

Marlene Gebauer (15:18)
So I’m curious about how the AI is trained. I’m assuming that it trains on contract law, landlord-tenant law, things that would come up as part of these disputes. I’m also curious, we talk about personas here sometimes in terms of different types of training and things like that. I’m wondering if judge personas were part of the training.

And then how do you keep the system from crossing the line into giving legal advice? I heard a little bit, if we sense there’s an agreement, we’ll start with the decision, but how do you avoid legal advice or saying, okay, right, wrong?

Vickie Wood (16:03)
Mm-hmm. Great questions. First off, no, it’s not trained in the law.

It doesn’t give any legal advice whatsoever. It is essentially a facilitator of the communications. As a mediator, most mediators know there’s a spectrum of how you approach mediation. You can be on one end, mostly facilitative, where you’re exploring people’s values and priorities in trying to get the case resolved, and you’re facilitating communication about how they feel and their thoughts on the case.

On the other end of the spectrum is a mediator who becomes quite evaluative and says to someone, “You’re gonna lose this case,” or, you know, “Here’s…”

Marlene Gebauer (16:48)
You know, “You might want to think about this.”

Greg Lambert (16:50)
Mm-hmm.

Vickie Wood (16:52)
“This is where I’m really concerned. These are your risks.” Generally, at least in how I mediate, and I think it’s one of the better ways to approach mediation, you start out facilitative and then, as the day goes on, you can get a little more evaluative and try to push things toward that end.

Judicaid stays facilitative. So there’s no legal advice. It’s not trying to tell someone, “You’re gonna lose this case,” or, “They’re right on this point and you’re wrong,” or vice versa. It will remind them of the risk and hassle, the time and expense of going to court, and the risk that they may not win their case, encouraging them to continue to think about compromise and keep engaging so they inch their way toward a palatable compromise where eventually they go, “Okay, I can say yes to this and be done and not have to deal with court.”

So that’s the idea, and that’s why we’re able to offer it nationally, because it doesn’t deal with laws that would be individualized to each state.

The training aspect is really, there are two main tech pieces. There’s the application that’s coded, which is our AI engine for the shuttle-style back and forth. That took a really long time to create. Then there is the mediator disposition architecture, and that’s where I had a lot of input as the subject-matter expert. It’s like a 38-page prompt that…

Marlene Gebauer (18:42)
Ha ha ha.

Vickie Wood (18:42)
That…

Greg Lambert (18:42)
How?

Vickie Wood (18:43)
guides Jude, our mediator’s name is Jude, by the way. It tells Jude…

Marlene Gebauer (18:48)
Do you say, “Hey Jude,” when you talk to it?

Vickie Wood (18:51)
Jude. We actually…

Marlene Gebauer (18:53)
I’ll leave now.

Vickie Wood (18:54)
never intended to have a name, and it just sort of came about. Since it’s Judicaid, and Jude’s sort of a gender-neutral name, we thought, why not? We’ll go for it.

But it’s the disposition, sort of prompting architecture, that tells it how to respond and how to continue to inch people toward a compromise. There are lots of guardrails so it’s never giving legal advice. It can suggest, if someone says, “Do you have any ideas on how we might be able to resolve this?” it can say, “Well, one thing you might consider is this,” or, “You could take payments over time,” or, “Maybe take a smaller payment up front and then the balance over time.” It can suggest things like that, but it’s very generalized in that way.

That’s a big part of why it was never intended to replace attorneys or human mediators. As a mediator, I know that most complex cases that go to human mediation are far too complex, both legally and emotionally, for an LLM to manage. So this is not trying to replace that. This is focused on filling the gap for those lower-value cases that are generally fairly simple.

There is emotion involved, and that’s something an LLM is very good at managing in communication. It’ll calm the person down, and they can get as upset as they want. It can be empathetic and say, “I hear you’re feeling really frustrated about that, and that’s understandable. But why don’t you let me go talk to the other person?” It’ll go to the other side, and it’s never gonna convey the anger or the bad words being said in the other room. It’s gonna say, “They’re feeling concerned about this.” So it paraphrases things in a way that makes them far more palatable to hear when you’re the adversary.

That’s a big part of what I do as a human mediator. When somebody is cussing and swearing and saying horrible things about the other side, I go in the other room and say, “Yeah, well, they’re starting to come around.” So…

Greg Lambert (21:17)
Yeah, I was gonna say, do you have it default back to those instructions so it doesn’t get caught up in what each side is feeding it, but rather goes back to its baseline to make sure it stays on the course it needs to stay on?

Vickie Wood (21:40)
Yeah. Like I said, the prompting architecture is vast, and it’s very carefully thought out in phases to guide things through. But it has priorities around guardrails, and if there’s any sort of safety issue, somebody says, “This is terrible. I’m gonna kill myself,” we make sure it’s gonna say, “If you’re struggling with that, then you need to consult resources in your locality. This may not be the place to do this.”

And there’s a button to say, “Stop mediating,” and terminate the mediation at any point in time. So, yeah, a lot of thought went into that…

Marlene Gebauer (22:25)
I have one. I have one.

Vickie Wood (22:27)
Aspect.

Marlene Gebauer (22:29)
Does it learn? I mean, from session to session or are those isolated?

Vickie Wood (22:34)
They’re isolated. We have made the decision at this point that we’re not training the AI model directly in the way that an open-source LLM would be constantly training itself.

Yeah, it’s truly intended to be confidential, just like mediation is confidential. You’re not supposed to go tell a court, “Well, in mediation she said this or that,” or you’re not allowed to, at least in California.

Greg Lambert (23:03)
And that’s when you hold up your hand saying, “I don’t want to hear that. I don’t…”

Vickie Wood (23:06)
Yeah. Yep. Exactly.

Marlene Gebauer (23:08)
No, no.

Vickie Wood (23:09)
Exactly. Privileged. So…

Greg Lambert (23:12)
Well, we talked about the user side, so let’s go over and talk about the court side. Courts appear to be a really important path for Judicaid going forward. Valerie, I’ll start with you, and Judge Wood, if you want to jump in, please do. What would a court-facing model look like in practice, and where do you see it fitting into the life cycle of these disputes?

Is it before the case is filed? Is it after, but before a hearing? Is there someplace else? Where do you see the path of leveraging either the threat of the court or the actions of the court to help Judicaid?

Valerie Clemen (23:55)
Yeah. Initially, it would be good to have it in self-help centers, because a lot of times, especially for small claims, landlord-tenant, or those types of claims, those parties are unrepresented. You just can’t afford to pay an attorney’s hourly rate for a case that’s honestly below $20,000. It doesn’t make any sense to pay an attorney, so they’re trying to figure out the system themselves.

Knowing they have this option to resolve their dispute without going through the paperwork, getting it served, and filing is helpful. So having that information in self-help centers and in the courts pre-filing is helpful. Once a case is filed, it would be helpful for courts to provide that option and, honestly, not make it voluntary. Make it mandatory to give it a try, to talk to the other side using some type of dispute resolution or mediation, but also provide Judicaid as a free resource for litigants to use and try to resolve the dispute.

The information would come at the time of filing. Like, here’s your complaint, you have to serve the other side, and also serve the other side with this dispute-resolution information to see if you can resolve the case before your hearing date comes up. In some courts, when your hearing date is set out six months or a year, being able to resolve it and put the thing behind you before that happens, or before you spend money having the sheriff personally serve it or hiring a process server, is helpful. There are so many costs and so much time associated with litigation.

The hope is that letting litigants know there’s this option would be helpful. Of course, a lot of unrepresented litigants are doing this for the first time. They’ve never filed a small-claims suit. They’ve never been in a legal dispute. A lot of them probably don’t even know what mediation is. I’d say at least 10% get the flyer and are like, “Meditation? I know I’m angry, but I don’t need that.”

Marlene Gebauer (25:48)
Yeah.

Valerie Clemen (25:49)
Like, just not having any idea.

Vickie Wood (25:51)
It should go hand in hand, though.

Greg Lambert (25:51)
I need it, but not in this case.

Valerie Clemen (25:54)
Yeah. Because honestly…

Greg Lambert (25:57)
So are you educating law librarians and self-help centers on this, so they have it as a tool they can point people to as an alternative, or…?

Vickie Wood (26:11)
We’re trying to. We’re trying to. We just…

Marlene Gebauer (26:15)
That’s why they’re on the podcast, Greg.

Vickie Wood (26:18)
But yeah, in Napa County, where we’re running the pilot, we have definitely put it out there to all of the people who might be interested. We’ve got flyers in the law library and in the regular county library. While it’s being offered for free, government agencies have a line where they don’t want to be advertising something that’s for profit.

But while they’re piloting it, or if they were, and actually, let me jump back to one of your questions, Greg, about what this would look like through the court. The platform itself will be identical. The courts would pay for a monthly subscription, and then they would be given a QR code that they could provide to litigants upon filing. They could even put it on their website, in the small-claims area, for people who are thinking of filing a claim to try it before they file.

Those people would enter the site through a landing page for that court with that QR code. There’s a little gateway where they have to say how they got there. If they didn’t get there through that court, we’re going to redirect them to the paid portion. But if they got there through the court through the QR code appropriately, then they bypass the payment piece and jump into the platform exactly the way everybody else does.

So, yeah, we’re trying to get this out there. We’re on social media. We just got back from a national court conference in Delaware. We were having conversations with courts across the U.S., getting them aware. I think the trick in trying to get courts on board with this is that most of the technology out there needs to be integrated into the courts’ networks and processes.

Their first thought, I think, is, “Here’s yet another AI-based app or process that we’re gonna have to implement and then be tied to this company for however long, and tied to their schedule of upgrades and new features and their pricing changes and all of that.” We’re completely different from that. The only thing the court has to do is give that QR code to its litigants or potential litigants, and any questions go through our support page. That’s it. That is it.

I think courts are having a hard time comprehending that it could be that easy. Hopefully we’ll get the message out. What was that, Marlene?

Marlene Gebauer (29:01)
This could be very helpful for them.

Greg Lambert (29:02)
Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer (29:05)
It could be very helpful for them in terms of the docket. So…

Vickie Wood (29:11)
Yeah, that’s the idea. And it’s so affordable that it’s sort of a win-win-win proposition, and it feels like a no-brainer to us. But still, it’s gonna take some time to get people to first be aware of it and then have a true understanding of how simple it is.

Valerie Clemen (29:29)
Yeah. I’ve had clients come to me, we’re in a small town, so I have clients who come to me with certain issues, and sometimes they come with things that are just so minor. They have a dispute with their neighbor and the money involved is so low, and I’m like, “Look, I can’t honestly have you pay me for this, but try this.” I’ve had a couple of clients go try Judicaid, and they were like, “It was easy to sign up and send the invite, but the other side didn’t respond.”

But it was nice. Sometimes clients come to you and they have things that are too minor, and you’re like, “Look, the budget for this doesn’t make sense.” Giving them something, some tool where they might resolve it on their own, was nice instead of saying, “I can’t take this. Good luck.”

Vickie Wood (30:12)
Yeah. So that is another sort of distribution channel, if you will. Exactly what Valerie just said, for attorneys to be able to give something of value to those clients they have to turn away. Say, “There’s another tool here.” We think it’s something attorneys would really like having in their back pocket for that situation. The problem is there is that immediate reaction of, “What is this taking? Is this going to take away our business?” Or, for…

Greg Lambert (30:45)
Yeah.

Vickie Wood (30:45)
mediators, “Is this going to take away our business?”

And I’m saying, no, it’s not that. LLMs are obviously changing the legal scene drastically, but at this level of sophistication, they can’t replace humans. You absolutely need human mediators. So hopefully, if there are attorneys out there listening, this is something for you to have to give to the people who you can’t otherwise help.

Valerie Clemen (31:16)
Yeah. It’s like…

Marlene Gebauer (31:16)
Yeah, I’m kind of looking at it like it’s an initial step because you’re absolutely right. I was very curious, a human mediator can sense when there’s unequal bargaining power or someone’s more legally sophisticated, and they can run their mediation with that in mind. But I’m curious how Judicaid does that as a technology tool.

Vickie Wood (31:43)
Well, in some ways it’s more neutral. Because it’s just going to be kind of…

Marlene Gebauer (31:47)
Yeah. It’s neutral. That’s it.

Vickie Wood (31:54)
Yeah, yeah. It’s not gonna be impressed by the person who is sort of a bully or sounds like they really know what they’re talking about. It’s not gonna be more persuaded by this side or that side. Again, it’s facilitating that conversation in a really neutral way.

And to your point about it being a starting point, yes, I do think cases will get resolved through this. But if they don’t, I also think there’s another value that goes beyond monetary. Let’s talk about this, it isn’t limited to small claims. It could be used for limited civil cases. It could be used for eviction cases. We’re gonna add a feature to try to get this into family law for parent-coordination kinds of things. I have unlimited features in my head, so it’s just a question of getting them to happen.

What I would see with small claims is, like I said in the beginning, people are passionate about these cases and they spend days’ worth of time preparing for them and putting everything into them. Then they get to court and there are 40 cases on the docket for trials. They’re gonna sit there for a long time, their case gets called, and they get maybe 10 minutes. And…

Greg Lambert (33:13)
Yeah.

Vickie Wood (33:14)
even if they win, but especially if they lose, they walk away not feeling good about the process and about the justice system, because many times this is these people’s only real interface with the courts. They walk away not feeling good about it, and that’s not good for any of us. That’s not good for society in general.

So if they start with a product like Judicaid, where they’re able to kind of be “heard,” and I’m putting that in air quotes for anyone who’s only on audio, to air their feelings about it and also hear the other side’s position and thoughts, and then have to think through the potential outcome that it may not go their way and decide they want to take that risk, well, now they’ve had much more participation in the ultimate outcome. I feel like that’s going to be an improvement for everybody across the board.

Greg Lambert (34:12)
Yeah. Well, I want to touch on your pilot with the Napa County Superior Court. Tell us about what you’re piloting. Beyond finding out whether the technology works, what are you hoping the courts will find out, and what are you hoping to find out from this pilot on your side?

Vickie Wood (34:35)
Yeah, so we’re new with the pilot. We’re kind of just starting to get through the period from where we started to where cases would be coming on to trial. We have had people engaging, but we’re not getting the mediations to happen yet.

So we’ve learned one really important thing, which is that people are gonna be reluctant to do this right now if it’s purely voluntary. That was a very valuable thing to learn. We knew there would be reluctance, but there’s significant reluctance.

One note, though, is that Napa County is a tiny county, so the number of filings is a very small sample to be working off of.

Greg Lambert (35:18)
I’m envisioning the mediation being over a glass of wine. That’s all I see.

Vickie Wood (35:22)
Of course, Greg, of course.

Marlene Gebauer (35:22)
Ha ha.

Vickie Wood (35:25)
If they’re not drinking wine, then the dispute is about wine somehow. But yeah…

Greg Lambert (35:30)
Yes.

Vickie Wood (35:32)
It’s a small county. But yeah, once we start getting engagement, and we’re connecting with some larger counties, one in particular is a large county that already mandates mediation for both small claims and unlawful detainers. They offer some human mediation options that are lower-cost than most human mediation, but still significantly more than Judicaid. So this would be another thing to offer people.

One of the greatest features about Judicaid is that it can be done in many different languages. You can have somebody who speaks only Spanish and someone who speaks only Russian mediating together. That would be very expensive to provide with a human mediator because you would probably have to have two interpreters for one mediator, and the cost skyrockets.

So, yeah, we’re hoping to get a bigger sample, especially one where it’s mandated, because we think if it’s mandated, a lot of people will opt for this because it’s so easy. You don’t have to schedule a set time. You can do it literally over your phone, dictating.

Greg Lambert (36:47)
And you mentioned that this isn’t just California, right? You’re looking at going…

Vickie Wood (36:51)
Correct.

Greg Lambert (36:54)
going into other states as well.

Vickie Wood (36:56)
Correct, correct. Yeah. And maybe, I mean, honestly, I don’t know why it couldn’t go outside the U.S. too, because again, it’s not tied to any particular laws. So I don’t know. I don’t want to think too big just yet, but…

Greg Lambert (37:09)
Well, then you have to deal with the EU and GDPR and all that, so, you know…

Valerie Clemen (37:14)
Yeah, yeah.

Vickie Wood (37:15)
Yeah. Well, I’ve been really bored lately, Greg. That would give me something to do with…

Greg Lambert (37:19)
Yeah.

Vickie Wood (37:19)
my time.

Marlene Gebauer (37:19)
Yeah.

So we kind of close the podcast by looking back and then looking forward. This is kind of our “what’s different now” question. If we had spoken with you a year ago, other than the fact that maybe Judicaid didn’t exist, what would you have told us is materially different today? What have users and court partners, or the experience of building the platform, taught you that changed your original assumptions?

Vickie Wood (37:56)
When I conceived of it, which was closer to two years ago, the way ChatGPT or any of these large language model platforms functioned was astonishing. I mean, it still is astonishing, but more people were seeing it for the first time or had not seen it yet. So the concept of what Judicaid does was almost like magic. Now people are aware that having a computer talk to you like it’s a human can be done.

What we have, that I don’t think is done anywhere else, is this shuttle-style approach where it’s truly exchanging the communications. But when my CTO told me, “This will be easy,” I thought we would be launching in like two months. Then all these months later, it’s not quite as novel as it was at the time.

At the same time, there’s also a fair amount of skepticism of AI and concern about AI taking jobs. There are people who might see that it’s an AI-facilitated platform and want nothing to do with it, without considering that this is something trying to provide a positive benefit and fill a gap. Those were unexpected things, but we’re rolling with it because I think it’s gonna require a little bit of awareness about what we’re doing.

Also, AI is becoming so pervasive that I think eventually people are…

Greg Lambert (39:41)
Yeah.

Vickie Wood (39:42)
just gonna get tired of being so against it, I guess. But yeah, I think the other thing is we focused on mediation because that’s the piece we wanted to nail down. Now that we have that core AI engine, we can branch off in so many different dispute-resolution ways, which gets me so excited.

We’re now calling it intelligent dispute resolution because it may not just be mediation. We might start having mediator’s proposals. We might have a parent coordinator to help with little custody disputes.

ODR, online dispute resolution, has been around for quite some time, but I think intelligent dispute resolution is new. So I’m gonna say you heard it here first.

Greg Lambert (40:29)
All right, all right. Well, that leads in perfectly to our crystal ball question. Valerie, I’ll let you start this off if you don’t mind. So…

Valerie Clemen (40:38)
Sure.

Greg Lambert (40:39)
Picking up on Judge Wood’s discussion there about intelligent dispute resolution, in three to five years, where do you see things when it comes to AI-assisted dispute resolution? What’s it gonna look like, and what all do you think it will cover?

Valerie Clemen (40:58)
I mean, our hope is that it would be offered in courts nationwide, because this underserved population doesn’t have access to dispute resolution or mediation, and this would provide that. So we would like to see it used in courts nationwide.

I would also, I mean, this is hopeful, but it would be nice if people just thought to “Judicate it”…

Vickie Wood (41:19)
Yeah.

Valerie Clemen (41:19)
when they have disputes, to go there first. You see people arguing on Nextdoor. Sometimes you think we should have guerrilla marketing and just go in there and say, “Just Judicate it.” Like, there’s so many…

Vickie Wood (41:32)
I don’t know if Nextdoor is national, but it’s this neighborhood platform. And yeah, so…

Greg Lambert (41:35)
It is. You know. No, we all…

Valerie Clemen (41:36)
It is.

Greg Lambert (41:38)
know. “Was that fireworks or gunshots?” is the most popular…

Valerie Clemen (41:41)
Yes, exactly. Exactly. “Does anyone…”

Vickie Wood (41:46)
Yeah.

Valerie Clemen (41:44)
“recognize this car?”

Greg Lambert (41:46)
Ha ha.

Valerie Clemen (41:47)
But people have disputes, and it’s really hard to get people talking to each other. Oftentimes, when people start talking to each other, they resolve things. It’s that initial step, because it’s uncomfortable, it’s adversarial. But once people do it, they can often resolve a lot of issues.

So the idea that people could use this as a tool to help get things started, it’s really hard to walk up to someone…

Marlene Gebauer (42:12)
Okay.

Valerie Clemen (42:13)
and confront them and talk about something, even if you have it simmering. I mean, people have a hard time with that with family members. You’ve had this thing simmering forever, but you can’t address it.

This is a tool that helps you be a little protected but still share your thoughts and feelings and resolve disputes. The idea that people could use it for all kinds of disputes, I mean, it is a very civil way to resolve disputes and quash things, and not have things linger for a long time.

But obviously, in the legal sense, it would be nice when people do have disputes to the level where they’re ready to file a lawsuit or do something more, that they have a way to either solve it beforehand or try to solve it once the lawsuit has started. They don’t have attorneys helping them in a lot of these cases. They’re probably using Claude or ChatGPT to help them with their case. So this is another resource to help them resolve it instead of keep fighting.

Vickie Wood (43:09)
Yeah, or have it escalate to something more than it ever needed to be. And just to tack on to that, I think that’s exactly right. A lot of times it’s barriers to communication, and that’s what Judicaid is trying to resolve. Whether it’s lack of skill with communication, a power dynamic, or a language barrier, that’s really where Judicaid provides this platform at a very base level.

And hopefully, this is my tagline that I have in our little video, my hope is someday that instead of saying, “Let’s take it to court,” we’ll say, “Let’s just Judicate it” instead. So that’s our hope.

Marlene Gebauer (43:49)
I like it. I like it.

Well, Judge Wood and Valerie Clemen, thank you for joining us and giving us a closer look at Judicaid, at both the opportunities and difficult questions that come with using AI and expanding access to dispute resolution. And thanks to all of you for listening to The Geek in Review. If you enjoyed the show, please share it with a colleague. We’d also love to hear from you on LinkedIn and Substack.

Greg Lambert (44:17)
And Judge Wood and Valerie, where can listeners go and find out more about Judicaid?

Vickie Wood (44:26)
Judicaid.com. We have a lot of information on there, including an instructional video that’s on YouTube, but you can access it from the homepage, along with how-to instructions. We’re on Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn, but that’s probably the best place to start.

Greg Lambert (44:47)
Soon to be on Nextdoor.

Marlene Gebauer (44:48)
All the places.

Valerie Clemen (44:50)
Yeah.

Vickie Wood (44:51)
I actually am on Nextdoor. That’s true. I haven’t really spent a lot of time on there yet, but yeah…

Marlene Gebauer (44:55)
Ha.

Vickie Wood (44:56)
I’m going there, Greg.

Greg Lambert (44:59)
Awesome, awesome.

Vickie Wood (45:00)
Thank you so much.

Marlene Gebauer (45:02)
And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry. Goodbye, everybody.

What happens when a 40-year-old legal data company decides its employees should start building their own software? This week on we talk with Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer and Senior Vice President of Research and Product Strategy Elizabeth Petit about an internal AI transformation that reaches far beyond adding ChatGPT to the corporate toolkit. Best Lawyers is experimenting with generative engine optimization, internal agentic systems, vibe coding, and an AI development environment where employees across research, finance, marketing, and other departments build applications around the company’s data.

Greer begins with a challenge facing every law firm marketing team: traditional search is changing. Google AI Overviews and answer engines such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini increasingly give users answers without sending them to the familiar list of blue links. Greer argues that SEO still matters, but law firms now need to think about Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, and the signals AI systems use when deciding which sources deserve trust. Structured data, schema markup, substantive content, and third-party validation all become part of the equation. For Best Lawyers, its long history of peer-reviewed rankings offers an interesting advantage. The company’s data serves as an independent signal that AI systems might weigh differently from content produced by a firm’s own marketing department.

Petit explains how Best Lawyers is applying the same thinking to legal marketing through Smithy AI, a system designed to help attorneys and law firm marketers develop profile content without endlessly copying the same biography across websites. Smithy draws from Best Lawyers’ structured information and existing lawyer content to produce a starting point that attorneys and marketers then edit. The larger goal is authenticity. As generative systems make producing generic legal content almost effortless, Greer argues that distinctive expertise, voice, and credible third-party signals become more valuable rather than less.

The conversation then moves inside Best Lawyers, where Greer has taken a far more unusual approach to AI adoption. After building a secure data layer connecting systems including SQL databases, HubSpot, Gong, Google Analytics, and accounting data, he created an internal Best Lawyers App Store where employees use natural language to build applications against company data. What began with roughly 30 percent of the workforce vibe coding has grown to around 40 percent, according to Greer. Petit describes building research and KPI dashboards despite coming from a research rather than software engineering background. Projects that once required Excel formulas, Power BI reports, development queues, and weeks of waiting now sometimes move from a question at 9:30 to a working internal application by 10:30.

That shift also changes the role of professional software engineers. Rather than spending their time building another reporting screen or internal form, Best Lawyers’ engineers increasingly concentrate on architecture, data infrastructure, performance, governance, and the guardrails surrounding employee-built applications. Greer describes moving parts of the company’s data architecture toward Elasticsearch and developing “Bestie,” an internal agentic AI team member. Yet speed introduces another problem. Petit and Greer describe an “AI vampire” effect, where instant feedback encourages people to keep working because the machine never gets tired, goes home, or stops responding. Human judgment includes knowing when the human needs to stop.

The discussion closes with what these changes mean for legal practice itself. Best Lawyers introduced Artificial Intelligence Law as a formal practice area in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, reflecting how AI work has spread across technology, intellectual property, privacy, employment, compliance, litigation, and counseling. Looking further ahead, Greer and Petit do not expect AI to erase the billable hour overnight. They do expect clients to ask harder questions about what they are paying for, how legal work was produced, where AI contributed, and where the lawyer’s judgment created value. If AI makes routine production dramatically faster, the economic question for law firms becomes less about how many hours technology saves and more about how firms explain, price, and defend the value of human expertise.

LINKS

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

Transcript

Greg Lambert (00:01)
Hey everyone, I’m Greg Lambert from The Geek in Review, and this week we are talking with Phillip Greer and Elizabeth Petit from Best Lawyers. But first up, here’s a word from our great sponsor and partners at Legal Technology Hub.

Marlene Gebauer (00:15)
I have Sarah Glassmeyer here from Legal Technology Hub, and since it’s almost time for ILTACON, Sarah’s going to share with us how you can use the Legal Technology Directory to prep for ILTACON.

Sarah Glassmeyer (00:30)
Yeah, so this is probably one of the more exciting times of the year for legal tech, kind of leading into ILTA. Everyone’s excited to see all the new changes, see people we haven’t seen for a year. So Legal Technology Hub can help you pregame and get ready to get the most out of it because, while you’re there, it does seem like you live now in Nashville and you’ve been there your entire life, but it goes fast. You only have two and a half, three days to talk to vendors.

So a couple of things I would suggest you do. One, look at the list of who is exhibiting at ILTACON. If you go to the ILTA website, they have a legal tech directory, but guess what? That is us.

We partner with ILTA. It is a mirror of our directory. You can see the little badges, and that will tell you who is exhibiting at ILTACON. Don’t wander in there. Think ahead and think, what am I looking for this year? Am I looking for a new kind of document automation tool? Am I looking for a new AI legal assistant?

So you do some filtering, make a list, see who’s going to be there, and start thinking ahead. Through the directory, you can see, these people don’t integrate with X tool, so they’re kind of off the list for us. You can do a little pre-filtering, pregaming, and figure out who you want to talk to, who is going to make the most of your time.

And then from there, if you are back on our platform in the Legal Technology Hub directory, if you’re logged in, you can make notes. So as you’re wandering through the exhibit hall visiting the people you want to visit, you can make notes saying, here’s this person’s email address that I spoke to and I want to follow up with them, or maybe show Bob this when I get back to my office, or these people are off the list, forget about them.

And so you keep track of who you’ve talked to, what you’re thinking about things live, and it’s all in one place on the Legal Technology Hub directory, not a swag bag full of business cards and flyers. So that’s how we help you get the most out of what you’re doing.

But also, I do suggest wandering around the exhibit hall, because everyone who’s there does have a listing on Legal Technology Hub, so you can double-check. But I think it’s good to wander, see who catches your eye, have a spontaneous conversation, because you might find a vendor you never considered or something you weren’t thinking about ahead of time. So it is a fun time to get yourself absorbed in what’s happening new in legal tech.

Marlene Gebauer (02:46)
Yeah, serendipity is definitely part of the ILTACON experience, but this is great advice in terms of using the Legal Technology Hub directory because it can be overwhelming, and this will allow you to focus on the vendors and people that you definitely need to talk to before you leave.

Marlene Gebauer (03:14)
Welcome to The Geek in Review, the podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert (03:21)
And I’m Greg Lambert, and today we are exploring how a legacy data institution is completely rearchitecting itself from the inside out for the generative AI era.

Marlene Gebauer (03:34)
We are thrilled to welcome Phillip Greer, CEO of Best Lawyers, and Elizabeth Petit, Senior Vice President of Research and Product Strategy. Phillip and Elizabeth have been leading a radical internal and external transformation at Best Lawyers, turning the organization into a pioneer for agentic workflows, vibe coding, and generative engine optimization. Elizabeth and Phillip, welcome to The Geek in Review.

Phillip Greer (03:58)
Thank you so much for having us. We’re quite excited to be here today.

Greg Lambert (04:03)
Right. Well, Phillip, I’m excited about this because I think a lot of us have been hearing about SEO for years, and now recently, with all the AI, we’re hearing more about generative engine optimization, or GEO.

Phillip Greer (04:18)
Mm-hmm.

Greg Lambert (04:20)
Last year you noticed that there was a massive drop in traditional web traffic due to all of these AI overviews that you see with Google and others, to where people are getting answers rather than getting links out to the websites and then going and finding the answer themselves.

So you talk about your pivot away, or, well, I’m sure you still use SEO, but you’re also having to implement this new generative engine optimization, and that differs a lot from the SEO that a lot of us here at law firms have grown up on and realized, in order for us to get high up on the Google rankings, we need to be good at that.

So how does GEO differ from traditional SEO? And why is it that these third-party reviews or peer reviews are becoming the primary, what you call a trust signal, that keeps firms from being compressed out of the AI search answers that we need to get involved in?

Phillip Greer (05:26)
Yeah, so I think it’s helpful to give a little bit more context. You started that process.

We’ve all been chasing SEO for over two decades, right? Google came out, and then, how do we get to the top of that Google ranking so that our customers and new clients can see the work that we’re doing? And we did that through so many things, backlinking efforts, keywords, thought leadership pieces, marketing associations, marketing partnerships with different types of organizations, et cetera, et cetera.

It’s been popular to say that SEO is dead. So first off, I don’t think SEO is dead. Traditional SEO is still important, and it’s the foundation of AIO.

So a few years ago, Google changed their search engine, and when you started searching, all of a sudden the middle of the funnel, or that blue-links world, started to go away, and you were using that Google Gemini. So you would say, “Hey, I need to find a lawyer for an issue I’m having,” and then it would give you a summary.

And then what was happening was so many law firms, and any type of business, were losing 15, 20, 30 percent of their web traffic because the blue links aren’t being clicked anymore. The users are going in, they’re getting that overview, they’re getting what they need, and they’re kind of moving on.

Well, those original AIO types of overviews were being fed from those SEO efforts.

Marlene Gebauer (06:51)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (06:51)
The shift that we did over the last couple of years is, first, make sure that our content is structured in a way that, when these LLMs such as ChatGPT or Google Gemini or Claude are coming to our website and looking at our data in traditional SEO forms, we’re tagging it and presenting it in ways that are helpful.

So you think about SEO stuff you used to do. It was all about meta descriptions, keywords, page titles, and then, again, we talked about some of the backlinking techniques. Those things were structuring it so that, when the crawlers are finding your website, they know how to get that data.

Well, that’s kind of amped up with AIO and then eventually what we’ll talk about with GEO. You not only needed the meta descriptions, you needed to have good schema markup. You need to describe sections on the page, to be able to ask questions, answer questions, so that when the AI engines were gathering data, it wasn’t only finding it, they could start to interpret it, because that interpretation is what becomes a little more important when you think of things like ChatGPT or Google Gemini.

It has to take the structured data, and then it has to interpret it and create insights and say, okay, now you can start showing up in these overviews.

The latest shift, and I think it’s the biggest shift, is this GEO, and that was your opening question.

Greg Lambert (08:14)
Right.

Phillip Greer (08:14)
The generative engine optimization approach. And that is making these AI systems not only get your data, but understand that they can trust your data. And so, how do you trust data?

Data has to come from quality places, things that are not produced by a marketing staff. So we’ve all gamed the SEO world. Every year, Google changed the algorithm again. What do we do? How do we get to the top? We spend more dollars. We make sure that we have more content. We flood the internet with it. We do backlink strategies, right?

That would work for SEO, and then it would work until they changed the next algorithm again.

With GEO, you have these AI systems that have some insight and intellect in the sense that it knows whether or not the content is being produced by you, your law firm, putting more information out there, or are you reading a service like Best Lawyers that’s known for producing peer review surveys and, ultimately, lists of lawyers? It’s an annual process. It’s been around for 40 years. It’s got a strong standing, a big domain authority. It is a trusted source. It’s third party to the industry that is putting out their data, right?

So that type of association is important. That’s where GEO plays a role.

So we think about our customers and clients who are part of Best Lawyers, who make those rankings. They get a leg up immediately by making it onto our list because they’re getting a signal, an AI signal in the industry for these LLMs to say, okay, if they’re on Best Lawyers and they’re ranked in corporate law, then their value has a higher weight.

And there are other types of services that you should be paying more attention to, and you want to make sure they’re credible. And so that’s why, when you think about what is your plan going forward, I think for law firms you should continue to think SEO is important, but it’s not the only thing. And that’s the takeaway.

SEO is important. It’s not the only thing. Structuring our data is important, and let’s make sure that we’re also thinking deeper about the schema so that we can have questions asked and answered. And then how are we putting our data in? How are we associating? What are we saying? Go see us on, go connect with, what type of services, and what’s their credibility level?

That’s what is creating the big buzzword for the last year, the AI signals. And all those together create a strong AI signal for your law firm.

Greg Lambert (10:39)
Yeah.

Well, one of the things that I’ve been hearing from marketing folks is much more long-form articles, client alerts, more showing your expertise in an area. Are you also seeing the generative AI or the AIO, and it sounds like a song,

Phillip Greer (10:58)
Yeah.

Greg Lambert (11:00)
or the GEO relying upon, instead of straight-out structure and how things are presented, deeper content as well? Are you seeing that?

Marlene Gebauer (10:59)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (11:13)
So first off, I refer to this as the E-I-E-I-O because it is 100 percent that effect. The Old MacDonald version.

Greg Lambert (11:18)
Yeah, there you go. The Old MacDonald version.

Phillip Greer (11:24)
For a new world. Yeah, so I think the goal is not only to have longer content, but it’s authentic content that speaks to your messaging.

Greg Lambert (11:31)
Okay.

Phillip Greer (11:31)
So you can create a lot of long-form content with AI, but the problem, if it’s not authentic to your brand and your expertise, you’re going to lose a lot of credibility.

So, thinking about what is it that makes your lawyer special? What makes them stand out? How do you speak on it? And how do you keep that authentic?

And sometimes it’s not directly in the world of law for the authenticity to stand out. So figuring out what your niche is there and then driving it home. That is what is going to create unique content that gives you that authority and will stand out among these GEO initiatives because they can say, this is not a whitewashed, white-labeled version of the same type of content that continues to be posted online. It’s something unique.

And if you have a series of this type of content, it can create that narrative of, okay, this is the type of lawyer, this is the type of firm, this is the type of credibility, this is the type of messaging that you can expect, and stand out among your peers. So yeah, I definitely agree with the longer-form opportunities there.

Marlene Gebauer (12:39)
So Elizabeth, for law firms trying to adapt to this new AI search environment, creating unique, machine-readable content is a difficult hurdle. Best Lawyers recently launched Smithy AI to help lawyers and marketers scale their profile content. How does this tool solve the duplicate-content penalty while keeping human editorial control firmly in the loop?

Elizabeth Petit (13:05)
Yeah. So first of all, we’ve always viewed ourselves as partners with lawyers and law firms. So the products that we build and deliver, we want to solve your problems. And one of the problems we know that you have is too many things to do and not enough time to do them.

So one of the things that Smithy AI was developed to address is getting lawyers to fill out their profiles.

Have either of you gotten lawyers to fill out their profiles? That’s a tall order.

Greg Lambert (13:35)
Yeah, all the time. All the time.

Phillip Greer (13:37)
Yeah.

Elizabeth Petit (13:41)
So the easiest thing, the old way to do this, the easiest thing to do is that most teams would copy and paste whatever you finally got written on your own website. You’re going to go copy and paste it everywhere else on the internet. And you got penalized for that.

So we wanted to, again, partner with law firms and develop an easier way to assist you with your workload.

So what Smithy AI does is it reads our structured data and the content you’ve already developed on your lawyer profiles on your website, and it makes a recommendation for you. Now, everybody knows that AI is not a replacement, it is an assistant, and you should still use your human judgment.

So it does say, recommended generative content. It pulls in information about the awards, things that it thinks are appropriate. You review it, and then you publish it with the click of a button.

The name for Smithy AI does come from one of our original co-founders, Gregory White Smith, who was a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer.

And so we also wanted to name it in his honor for both founding Best Lawyers and as a writer who was a craftsman as well. So Smithy is developed to help you with your mountain of work, both with profiles, but also there are features now to help with press releases, email announcements, social assets. So we’re trying to be your extra hands when you’re looking at the clock, looking at your watch, looking at your calendar, and you don’t have enough hours in the day.

Greg Lambert (15:18)
I’m curious when it comes to that because I know, for example, one of the things that got pushed out on platforms like Substack is there’s kind of that AI content identifier.

Phillip Greer (15:34)
Mm-hmm.

Greg Lambert (15:35)
And so is that one of the things that you try to look for with using a tool like Smithy, giving them something to work with, but then, is it a full copy and paste, or is it something that they take and then they kind of do their own smithing on it as well? How do you encourage your clients to use the tool?

Elizabeth Petit (16:00)
Yep, so we envision it to get you like 90 percent of the way. So it’s not a copy and paste. It doesn’t pull exactly what you’ve already written. You can also hit that button a few times and say, slightly rewrite it, slightly rewrite it, polish it for me. So it can iterate a little bit for you.

But as with all wordsmithing through AI that we all do, we all know we do this, you should never take whatever it spits out for you and then publish that. This is where human judgment always needs to be that final set of eyes, that final check before you are comfortable publishing to your website, our website, or anywhere that you publish content.

Phillip Greer (16:44)
Yeah, and I would say also, going back to your point about the long-form content and where I was going with brand authenticity. So one of the great things about Smithy is, as Elizabeth is saying, we’re going to get the way you’re talking about yourself on your profiles, and we’re going to take the data we have on Best Lawyers and put it through our own system to say, how do we think it should build content?

So it’s going to have your unique voice with our data, but you still want to ask yourself, is this me?

If not, you do have the ability to be replacing it with another version of yourself. And I know with AI, it’s a whole different topic where there’s a lot of, what does it mean to clone a lawyer? Well, we don’t want you to clone your brand. We want you to play a role in helping that editing of the brand.

I think back to college, the hardest thing was always to start writing the paper. The first paragraph is always the hardest. The thing about Smithy is it’ll write the first four paragraphs for you, but you should come in with that closer. You should come in with that closer and do a little bit of editing on the first four that it produces for you.

Greg Lambert (17:52)
Phillip, I want to turn to something that you’ve done that I think we’ve seen a few CEOs do, and that was there at Best Lawyers, you kind of famously mandated that your entire team continue doing their job, but also look at becoming essentially software builders.

Phillip Greer (18:13)
Mm.

Greg Lambert (18:14)
Now you’ve got, and I think the last estimate was about 30 percent of the company, vibe coding their own apps. And Elizabeth, I think you’re a prime example of this. You’re a researcher, not an engineer, yet you were involved in building a real-time KPI dashboard there at Best Lawyers.

So it seems like people are taking you up on your challenge, Phillip. So I want you to walk us through something that you’ve built that takes the worst part of your job off the plate. And then, once the repetitive data wrangling is automated, how do managers shift their focus from doing that kind of grunt work to focusing on more of the higher creative work?

Because that’s something that we’re insisting our lawyers do. So I’m hoping you’ve got the secret sauce and can help us on that.

Phillip Greer (19:20)
Yeah, I’ll start here, and then I’ll want to pass it over to Elizabeth. But I’ll start.

So the end of last year, I’ve been playing with a lot of AI and product development for years now. My background is engineering. I used to build a lot of software. I built a lot of the core systems we still use here at Best Lawyers for producing our rankings and doing our survey processes.

And then I’ve been the CEO and running it for quite some time. And when AI came on the scene, I started experimenting. What can we do? What can we do?

And about December of last year, I had the breakthrough. Claude Opus came out, and its coding abilities were far superior to every other AI coding that had existed before.

So I had this wild thought where, what if I build an environment that was safe, that our team could fail fast in and not worry about hurting our data, and it wouldn’t go and be spread out to the outside world? It wouldn’t be trained on outside systems. We wouldn’t have to worry about them doing some shadow IT type environment where they’re taking sensitive data and going straight to ChatGPT and dumping it out there.

So I felt an obligation to create that environment. And it’s an exciting time because it felt possible. So I spent all of the holiday break in December and then all of January building out, first, an environment.

And what I mean by that is a place where all our data connects. So I needed to create this API layer so that all of our data, when I say our data, I mean our SQL data, our accounting data, our HubSpot, Gong, Google Analytics, any type of systems that we are accessing and using on a daily basis, I wanted it all to come to one place and then inform itself and know about its own data.

So I created a data lake, if you will, custom. And ultimately, I don’t know, for those who are a little more technical on these calls, it’s a deep coverage model where the data in Gong understands how it relates to our data inside of HubSpot, and that understands how it relates to our data inside of Google Analytics, and so on.

So when you’re asking questions, it references each of the data sets, and it knows what a firm is or a lawyer is inside of those areas.

That’s a complicated way of saying I made a place where all our data came together safely and made sure it knew how it was associated.

And then I needed to create that safe environment. So I built a system called the Best Lawyers App Store, where you could go in and start vibe coding through our Claude environment.

And when you vibe code, you’re safely in that App Store. It’s using only our data sets, and you can build, eventually, what we now are using as an operating layer for most of our business.

So I did this. I put all this together. I got it in a prototyped form, and I met with the team at the end of January and I said, “All right, all right, I got an idea. Everyone’s going to become a vibe coder. Every department’s going to be a builder. Elizabeth is going to be a builder. Nancy is going to be a builder.”

I went full Oprah Winfrey on, you’re going to, you’re going to, you’re going to.

Greg Lambert (22:25)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (22:26)
And they were all on board. I was like, okay, no convincing needed, you’re totally in for this.

Elizabeth was one of the first people I sat down with. I think I spent all of 30 minutes with you, Elizabeth. It was a short session. I got you set up in the environment. I gave you the tools, told you how the data works and how to connect it, and I said, go and dream and build.

And Elizabeth, I’d love to hear your take on it. That’s my more technical explanation of what happened. I’d love to hear what your side was.

Elizabeth Petit (22:56)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (22:56)
I’d love to hear what your side was.

Elizabeth Petit (22:58)
Yeah. So I knew Phil had been working on this passion project. Phil’s always got multiple passion projects going. So I knew he’d been working on this, and then he made a statement and he’s like, “I’m going to ask you guys to come join me in this.”

And then he did that ping and he’s like, “No, I mean it.”

And I’m like, “Yeah, I know. I’m here. I’m ready.”

So my personal mantra has always been, my team knows this, work smarter, not harder. And that doesn’t mean we don’t work hard. I love to work hard. But it means work more efficiently. If there’s a better way to solve your problem, do it the more productive way. Don’t do something the same way over and over again because you’ve always done it that way.

So what vibe coding unlocked for me was this new ability to work smarter and not harder, and take some of the repetitive, mundane parts of everybody’s job and make them more fun, make them more creative, automate them.

Whether it’s through KPI reporting that eats up time every day, or taking some of these important projects or problems we want to solve that sit on that shelf, that you know have value, but you never have the time to take off the shelf.

And say, okay, now that I have optimized some of this basic operational work, I’m not spending all day, two days of the week, pulling together my KPI reports, let’s take a bigger, meatier project off the shelf and let’s go start working on that.

Phillip Greer (24:38)
Yeah.

It’s been exciting watching how everybody came to the table to build.

Elizabeth built research dashboards to monitor the process for Best Lawyers as the nominations were coming in and voting was happening. Nancy, our head of content, developed expense-paid tracking systems for all of our budgets that were going out for paid media, as well as her marketing team developed this marketing dashboard that pulled in our Google Analytics and gave full-funnel conversion visibility.

I mean, we went from, like a lot of companies, working heavily in Excel and Power BI or Tableau. We’ve stopped using Power BI. We don’t use any Tableau. We do everything now inside of our dashboards that are developed independently by departments.

And the only time we’re in Excel these days is when we’re exporting data sets to give to our business partners or if we’ve got to send them out somewhere. But we work primarily now inside of our BL App Store environments.

When you’re asking for data and looking for new trends and analysis, it used to be, okay, we’ll export everything out to Excel. We’ll write a bunch of complicated formulas. I’m Googling how to write that complicated formula.

Greg Lambert (25:55)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (25:55)
My God, why do we have to write these complicated formulas?

Greg Lambert (25:58)
Yeah. How do I do that VLOOKUP table again?

Phillip Greer (26:00)
Yeah, that VLOOKUP table.

Elizabeth Petit (26:01)
Yeah.

Phillip Greer (26:03)
My God. And then you always have the one person in the office who’s your Excel person, and that’s what their life is all about. “Ask me about my sheets,” you know?

But now everyone goes straight into their environment. The data’s all there in our data layer. It’s trained, it’s learned, it knows itself in the deep coverage model.

And you work through our App Store and ask it questions. And instead of developing an Excel sheet, you develop an entire new page that is the best visual representation of your data and answers a question. And you use that to start making decisions.

So our speed to decision is pretty great. A week-long, two-week-long Excel project is now done. We have an idea in a 9:30 meeting. By 10:30, we have a new page that’s been pumped out through our finance team that’s explaining the answer.

And then we need to make that next decision and, okay, how do we execute on this data?

Greg Lambert (27:02)
The follow-up I have on that, and this is something I’ve been writing on, especially since you have so much data that you’re working with, and it sounds like you’ve solved part of the problem through creating these data lakes or this ability to feed information into the right places so that you set up your AI to access clean information in a relatively simplistic way rather than having to go out to 15 different places, some external, some internal. You’ve got it all built.

So the topic that I’ve been writing on a lot, and I think this is going to be, I thought it was going to be 2027 fodder, but it might hit before then, is a lot of us are building these harnesses around both our data and our AI tools with the expectation of a lot of this information.

You don’t need to dump everything into the LLM and get an answer. You need it to be precise, and you need it to be consistently right so that the inputs and the outputs are accurate.

So I know, Phillip, you designed the initial, you vibe coded the system around it. Do you have a technical team now that keeps that up to date, updates or adds new things that come in, or are you still able to use the talent that you have on staff that they build on top of what’s already built?

How do you take that 9:30 question and turn it into a 10:30 report?

Phillip Greer (28:47)
Yeah, so I built all the environment for the initial App Store, and my intention was always to hand off the day-to-day maintenance because adding more data to our data lake or data API library is going to be a constant workflow.

And any company who’s working with any type of data environment, governance, or what have you, whether it’s SharePoint or an actual Azure data lake, et cetera, you’re going to have to have somebody managing that.

So once I got everything built, the initial systems, we found one person internally who had the most interest in the AI infrastructure and the future of AI and how it’s used in programming. He was one of our programmers, and his name’s Seth.

And so I trained him for a week on the system, and he took it over. And now he is running that API library.

And people, all the vibe coders, as they need more data or they need more feature abilities in the App Store, they go through Seth. And it’s been a good system.

Because my original vision was, I knew what Elizabeth and I knew what our research and our finance and our content team would need to get started, but I didn’t know what they were going to build, right? And that’s the wild thing, what they end up building and how they use the data.

I’m watching some of the requests come through and some of the systems they’re building, and I know because I designed the actual data that came together, and I would go, that’s not going to work. They don’t have that data. That’s not going to work. They don’t have that data.

So I had that moment where I was like, I need to hand this off to someone. I’m the CEO of this company. I can’t keep adding to that API layer.

Greg Lambert (30:28)
You don’t want to be the head vibe coder and CEO?

Phillip Greer (30:31)
Head vibe coder and CEO.

So I got Seth involved, and now whenever they start to build with more data, he continues to extend the actual API layer.

But what is great is the actual building is still happening from the non-builders. Well, they used to be non-builders. I’d call them all builders now.

That 30 percent number, as of, I onboarded a few more people this last week, we’re up to 40 percent of our company who are vibe coders now. It’s growing because the mentality is, if you want to do this, we want to help you do it. There’s no reason you have to sit on the sidelines.

So I handed that over, and then what I realized quickly by handing this over is there’s an opportunity to build more things.

So that’s been kind of exciting. And we can get into it. But I built out what we lovingly call here Bestie, which is our first type of AI support team member that uses our different models and data sets.

So yeah, you have to have someone who’s going to own it. You’ve got to have someone who’s going to make sure that they’re adding to it. But that’s the easy part.

The harder part is thinking about what you want to build. Because when you can build endlessly, narrowing that scope down to building things that are functionally helpful is that next muscle you have to start learning how to train.

Greg Lambert (31:55)
Yeah, it’s not asking what do I build, it’s what should I build, right?

Phillip Greer (32:01)
Yeah. One of the opening things you mentioned was about, how do you open up room and bandwidth for creativity?

Well, you have to allow yourself to be creative. And there’s a lot of people who work in an office environment that have not worked that muscle in a long time because you make that Excel report, you put it through Power BI, you drop it out as a PDF, and then you take it to the board. And you do it again, and you give the lawyer the thing.

The creativity is lacking.

And now all of a sudden, all of that administrative burden is done within 9:30, the idea, 10:30, the actual result. Now what’s the creative solution that you move forward and make something functional to execute on?

Marlene Gebauer (32:43)
So transforming a workforce as quickly as you have doesn’t happen without some friction. Phillip, you’ve spoken about the AI vampire effect causing extreme decision fatigue.

Phillip Greer (32:52)
Mm-hmm.

Marlene Gebauer (32:53)
And Elizabeth, you’ve had to manage an existential crisis among your software engineers. How did you help these technical engineers transition to feeling like they’re authoritative system architects rather than feeling displaced?

And how are you managing that cognitive burnout when AI offers answers in seconds instead of in weeks?

Elizabeth Petit (33:20)
Yeah. So first of all, the existential crisis is understandable.

These team members of ours, many of whom Phil and I have worked with for over 10 years, went to school to be experts in these fields. They are craftsmen. They are builders. This is their superpower.

And then seemingly overnight, IKEA came to town, and no longer is the craftsman superpower the same. And that’s hard. And I understand that, and we did understand that.

And it helped that Phil was a developer and came from that background, so he understood that as well.

And it was always our goal, continues to be our goal, to use AI to upskill our team members as an opportunity for professional development, whether you are an engineer or another member of the business team. It is not to replace anybody’s job.

And so while the business team is learning a superpower they never thought they would have, they never thought that they were going to be this type of craftsman, and they’re not going to be this technical craftsman, they do some things.

What it has done for our engineers is it has allowed them to also build faster, solve more complex problems. All the things that AI does. It allows for better debugging, it allows for better regression testing, it removes some of that mundane work that they were doing.

So we went into this as, we are all going to learn this together. This is new emerging technology. We don’t have all the answers, and we want to figure out how this makes the most sense for you and your roles, and us within our business.

Phillip Greer (35:16)
Yeah. At the end of January, at the same time I was meeting with the executive team, Elizabeth pulled all of our engineers together in an in-person meeting, and we had a Q1 huddle.

And I sat there and explained to them that I’ve built this App Store. I’ve got this huge data layer. All our data comes together nice and clean. It’s learning off of each other. And now everyone’s going to become builders.

And it was a lot of disbelief because, again, craftsmen, like, okay, I make quality code. There’s no way a machine’s going to do it.

And so there was a lot of disbelief.

After that, I met with Elizabeth and team and taught them how to vibe code, and they started building apps.

We brought everyone back together again and showed them what these non-builders were putting together and how it was pulling data from all of our systems.

And then even our engineers were in the mindset of, my God, this is a real thing. This is not some fancy fad happening, Phil says everyone’s going to be doing this. They’re building financial systems. They’re building research systems, marketing systems, sales systems.

And it was clear that they wanted to be part of it too.

And so Elizabeth put on, I thought it was an intelligent thing, as we had the adoption, every two weeks we’d have sessions where we’d encourage the engineers to show, in a safe space, the other engineers what they’d been vibe coding.

Because there’s also this stigma, like, I’m an engineer. I don’t vibe code. I know how to code.

But that’s not what vibe coding is. Vibe coding is not a replacement for, I don’t know, a good analogy. Here’s a good analogy.

I play guitar. But when someone says, “I play Guitar Hero,” and they’re pushing those buttons on the little plastic machines,

Marlene Gebauer (37:02)
Ha ha ha.

Phillip Greer (37:03)
I would go, “Ha, you don’t play guitar. I play.”

It’s not that. It’s a completely different thing. It’s not analogous to Guitar Hero versus playing guitar.

Both people are coding. Both people are building. It’s only one person’s doing it craftsman style, line by line. The other person is effectively doing it through a learned generative system that knows how to put all the pieces together, and you get to be that creative fountainhead.

So watching them come along the journey, it took a little while. We had to walk with them. We had to have these sessions where they would show what’s possible.

And the way it’s aha moments. After you start to realize, I made my day a little less boring, or I removed this ridiculous, redundant task that I have to do over and over, you start to go, now what do I do?

So that’s been a fun thing to watch. And I’m using the word fun because everything’s hindsight. In the moment, it was like, come on, guys, you don’t understand. I promise we’re not playing Guitar Hero. This is real. We’re producing real things.

Greg Lambert (38:06)
Yeah. I can’t imagine the eye strain from the eye rolling from your engineers when you first announced this.

Phillip Greer (38:16)
Yeah. Yeah, it was significant.

Marlene Gebauer (38:16)
Ha ha ha.

Greg Lambert (38:20)
But I’m wondering, Phillip, how do you leverage the intelligence and the experience of your engineers? Is there anything that they help people like Elizabeth better understand about structure and what the end results are and how you want to get there?

How do you leverage that expertise to help the non-engineers?

Phillip Greer (38:50)
So Elizabeth made the comment that our goal was not to reduce our engineering staff in this process. We wanted to support and invest more.

And they ultimately have, to the point you’re making, this understanding of our data.

No matter how much we bring it together and add to our API and have it learning on itself, they understand the repository, where it comes from, how it was put there, how it’s designed, the schema markup, how you scale it, and when you’re having more and more people access it, how much you pull on those data sets.

I’ll give you an example.

One person was writing an analytics system as a builder, and they were saying, give me all of our analytics in our BL App Store. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of data points, and they couldn’t get their app to do it. It was crashing constantly.

And so we had to have one of our architects come in and go, let’s walk through this.

And what they built, you’re using the word harness or harnesses earlier, or guardrails, they decided to change our API layer to understand that the user doesn’t understand the data when they say, give me all of our analytical data, give me all of our financial data.

So it’s my job to create ways that I feed it to them in an appropriate way.

Because when you have access to all of this and you don’t know how it’s formed, functioned, and put together, you create a lot of overly inefficient, heavy systems.

So what we’ve been doing is we’ve opened up the doorway and the communication to say, go talk initially to Seth. He’s in charge of the App Store. And then from there, you spend some time meeting with one of the engineers and asking questions about, how do I make my app do something a little faster? It’s getting stuck here.

And they walk you through their why and the how.

Because what they’re doing is they’re not only in charge of where the data is coming from, they understand it, and they’re building better ways to feed it.

So we had a big session with our engineers where we’re saying, how do we feed things even faster to our API layer?

So we had an architectural meeting where we’re trying to understand, if things are coming from SQL and those are our bottlenecks, it’s single-server environments, how do we extend that further? Let’s have a stopgap where it feeds into a system like Elasticsearch.

I’m so sorry for all the technicality here. Let’s have it feeding to a faster system.

Greg Lambert (41:11)
I think a lot of people that listen to this have heard Elasticsearch before.

Phillip Greer (41:16)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So we decided to move our API model from SQL to Elasticsearch, so the first read comes from a faster environment.

And these are the new types of things that our programmers get to think about. No longer are they creating forms on an intranet to feed data back to an end user in an Excel environment.

Now our engineers are freed up thinking, okay, if I restructure my data and take it from a single-server environment to a multi-server replica environment where I feed it faster, what do we accomplish?

How do I create a harness that feeds this data in a way that has nice guardrails, and they don’t have to think about ruining the data, over-encumbering the server? We’re not going to have server crashes.

And those are the projects.

Engineers always talk about, Elizabeth made the comment, taking that hard project off the shelf. That’s what the engineers want to do. They don’t want to have to write one more page on the intranet. They don’t want to write one more page that tells you what your voting reports are.

They will do it because that’s their job.

What they want to work on is making our server faster, building a better backend system, creating a new way to isolate our data and feed it in a multi-tenant scenario.

So that’s when their aha moments and their expertise start to be able to work on those types of systems.

For the first time, those are the types of things where we go, okay, you get the last two weeks of December. This is what you get. Build whatever you want in two weeks.

And now you have more opportunity to start thinking about that longer-term pipeline because each department, they’re servicing their own needs with the data.

Greg Lambert (42:59)
That sounds good, and I think it’s something that we all kind of face for how we transition into whatever the new version of, whether you’re a manager or an engineer, it seems like we’re all taking on more.

And I’ve noticed I’ve not seen people go home earlier on Fridays for some reason.

Phillip Greer (43:23)
Yeah.

Greg Lambert (43:24)
So I’m still waiting for my, it’s time for me to be rolling in income and sitting on the beach the whole time. So perhaps that’s a 2028 goal.

Elizabeth Petit (43:33)
Well,

Greg Lambert (43:34)
2028 goal.

Elizabeth Petit (43:35)
I think one of the reasons for that is because you move so much faster with AI, and specifically with vibe coding, it has unlocked all of this creativity and opportunity that, for those of you who’ve done it, is quite addictive.

Greg Lambert (43:55)
Yeah.

Elizabeth Petit (43:55)
Once you get in there and you start building, whatever you are, you’re prototyping something, you’re building something you’ve been wanting for years.

That used to be this cumbersome process of meetings, requirements, design, getting in the development queue. Three years later, you get something you asked for that you don’t need anymore.

You now all of a sudden get it quickly.

Okay, that’s great. But also, the feedback loop comes immediately. So instead of Friday morning you send off your information and think, I’ll get something on Monday to address, it comes right back to you.

Phillip Greer (44:32)
Mm.

Elizabeth Petit (44:33)
So now we have this cognitive fatigue concern because you are engaging so rapidly that the machine will never get tired. It will never go to dinner with its family. It will never log off for the weekend.

So at a certain point, you have to have the critical judgment to say, I am exhausted. You will never be exhausted, but I am.

And Phil shared this story that he found himself at one point being so in the go, and Phil and I are the same in that way. Once we get on that path, we are running.

And then he realized that he was not making the same little decisions that he would make. And not big, impactful things, but things that usually he would make a decision about.

He had that aha moment that he was having cognitive fatigue. And you don’t want AI to make those decisions for you.

So that’s when,

Phillip Greer (45:33)
Yeah.

Elizabeth Petit (45:34)
you have to remind yourself, AI will never say, go spend time with your kids, you know, go home early on a Friday.

Marlene Gebauer (45:41)
Not unless you

Phillip Greer (45:42)
Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer (45:42)
create an agent to remind you.

Greg Lambert (45:44)
Yeah, exactly.

Elizabeth Petit (45:44)
Yeah, exactly.

Phillip Greer (45:45)
Yeah.

Greg Lambert (45:45)
Exactly.

Phillip Greer (45:46)
And that runs into, you mentioned earlier, the AI vampire. That’s what it is. It’s feeding off of you, you’re feeding off of it, and you have to recognize, okay, I get to walk out in the sunlight. So I need to go do that some.

Marlene Gebauer (46:01)
Tear my eyes away from the screen, yes.

Greg Lambert (46:04)
Yeah, well, I always say when somebody asks me what’s the addictive game that I’m playing on my phone, I say it’s my $200-a-month Claude account. I’m on it all the time.

Phillip Greer (46:15)
Yeah, yeah.

Elizabeth Petit (46:16)
Yeah. Yeah.

Greg Lambert (46:18)
So yeah, you’re right.

Elizabeth, before we start wrapping up, I know that AI, of course, isn’t only affecting how we manage engineers, how we manage managers, and how we all become vibe coders. It’s becoming a part of Best Lawyers content as well.

And one of the things that you oversaw was the introduction of Artificial Intelligence Law as a formal recognition category in the 2026 edition.

Do you mind talking about what that encompasses, how you came up with it, and what you found?

Elizabeth Petit (47:00)
Yep. So, you know, it is always our goal to help connect clients in need of legal services, whether that’s professional or personal, with the right attorney for their case.

And so we always keep our eyes and ears open for developments in the legal industry to add new practice areas as they emerge over time.

So cannabis law, that was one that we added a few years ago because that was bubbling up.

And so about three years ago, we started to see that law firms were adding AI practice groups. And so we added this and started researching AI as its own practice area.

Now, when this first started, I envisioned this would be sort of a subset of emerging tech.

And we have technology law, and that this would kind of,

Greg Lambert (47:51)
This is what the blockchain lawyers morphed into, right?

Elizabeth Petit (47:54)
Yeah, exactly. This is sort of what I thought this would evolve into.

Phillip Greer (47:54)
Yeah. Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer (47:54)
Yeah.

Elizabeth Petit (47:57)
But as AI is so dynamic and evolving so quickly, the definition of an AI lawyer is quite nebulous.

Are you counseling AI corporations? Are you focused on data privacy? Are you looking at government issues? Even labor and employment. I mean, AI is truly touching everything.

And so because of that, it started off more as a subset of technology. But we will have to evolve with AI in our awards as this industry evolves so rapidly to make sure that it is reflective of how legal is addressing AI and the needs of clients.

Greg Lambert (48:49)
Are you thinking about

Phillip Greer (48:49)
We didn’t even get it.

Greg Lambert (48:52)
an AI-native law firm category? That seems to be the big buzz phrase these days.

Elizabeth Petit (49:01)
Yeah. We are getting ready to evaluate adding new practice areas for next year. So look for that webinar series coming up soon.

Phillip Greer (49:10)
Yeah, and whether or not we have AI law firms that we recognize, that’s currently not on the horizon.

But it is the question, when do I have my work done by AI and AI Inc.?

Greg Lambert (49:27)
Yes.

Marlene Gebauer (49:27)
Ha ha.

Greg Lambert (49:29)
All right. Well, before we get to our crystal ball question and we start looking at the future, I want to ask you guys to look back in the past. And I think I know where this is going based on our conversation.

Phillip and Elizabeth, what’s something that’s true today that wasn’t necessarily true for you and Best Lawyers a year ago? What’s changed in that year?

Phillip Greer (49:52)
Yeah.

Greg Lambert (49:52)
What’s changed in that year?

Phillip Greer (49:53)
I mean, the biggest thing, it’s everything we talked about, that we have non-builders, and they’re taking their data and they’re solving their own problems.

We have a decent engineering team as far as size because our company is research and tech. We use a lot of tech to build rankings and recognitions in over 76 countries.

And so we always built a lot of custom software, and we’ve always been able to do dynamic things for each department. But there was always a process. You got in line, got queued up, and then it handed off to the engineering team.

Greg Lambert (50:28)
Q3. Q3.

Phillip Greer (50:30)
And now that’s changed greatly because everybody is handling the majority of their own needs internally.

We’re still externally using our engineers. We’re not developing any software. All software that’s hitting our customers is still handled by our engineering team because that’s the right way to handle it.

But for all our internal needs, everyone’s a builder. So that was a big change I’ve seen. That is different now.

What about you, Elizabeth?

Elizabeth Petit (50:59)
I think the surprise that has come out of this is, I’ve been with Best Lawyers for over 15 years now, and I did not expect this career development opportunity.

Phillip Greer (51:14)
Mm.

Elizabeth Petit (51:15)
So I thought that I would continue to grow in leadership or other traditional career development paths, but all of a sudden to have an entire skill set that I did not have last year, that’s pretty amazing.

And I’m grateful to have been given that opportunity.

Marlene Gebauer (51:37)
All right, we’ve looked a little bit at the past, and now it’s time to look in the future.

If you would gaze into your crystal ball and look ahead a few years, as autonomous agents and vibe coding become standard inside both data organizations and law firms, what’s the single biggest shift you see coming for the legal profession’s economic model, specifically regarding the billable hour?

Phillip Greer (52:03)
Hmm. So I don’t think the billable hour is going to disappear overnight, right? But it will shift.

People are going to have more scrutiny of how you’re backing up the value of what’s coming from the work product.

And there’ll be more questions about how did you derive that actual result set.

It was already the question, you hire the partner and you ask yourself, am I getting the partner’s hours or am I getting the junior associate? That’s already been on the table for a long time. And some clients have been wanting to know that. And they want to know, I am paying for the partner’s time.

I think there’s going to be a lot of questions that more clients are going to be asking. I want you to break down the justification. Am I paying for the senior partner’s time, or how much am I paying for the AI’s time?

I don’t know what that’s going to look like as far as how it wants to be shown in transparency, but I think that’s going to be a big question.

Marlene Gebauer (53:01)
How about Elizabeth?

Elizabeth Petit (53:04)
I agree. I don’t think that this is, legal doesn’t revolutionize overnight. We’ve all been in this industry for a minute.

But a lawyer is not going to become twice as productive with AI. They’re not going to bill twice as many hours a day. That’s not possible.

But they’re expected to still bring in that same amount of revenue for the firm.

And so figuring out that balance between what is the appropriate use for AI, but still what requires that human judgment that AI will never replace.

And that’s ultimately what a client comes to a law firm for, not the administrative work that AI assists with. It is the human judgment.

That’s where I feel like, if firms tell their story to clients successfully, they sort of balance that out, get that efficiency that they need, but still have the confidence of their clients.

Greg Lambert (54:04)
Mm-hmm. All right. Well, I think that’s a good spot to end on.

So Phillip Greer and Elizabeth Petit, thank you so much for joining us and breaking down what it looks like behind the walls there at Best Lawyers. Appreciate it.

Marlene Gebauer (54:18)
Yeah, thank you.

Phillip Greer (54:18)
Yeah, thank you so much for having us.

Elizabeth Petit (54:19)
Thank you for having us.

Marlene Gebauer (54:21)
And thanks to all of you for listening to The Geek in Review. If you’ve enjoyed the show, please share it with a colleague. We’d love to hear from you on LinkedIn, YouTube, and Substack.

Greg Lambert (54:30)
And Phillip and Elizabeth, where’s the best place for listeners to learn more about you, more about Smithy AI, Best Lawyers, Bestie, all those things?

Phillip Greer (54:40)
So first off, for more information, go to bestlawyers.com. Also look us up on LinkedIn.

I’m posting a lot of videos about some of the AI work that I’m doing, some of the apps we’ve been building. And yeah, feel free to follow us there and check out what we’re doing.

Marlene Gebauer (54:56)
And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry, and goodbye, everybody.

In this episode of The Geek in Review, we talk with Patrick Forquer, Chief Revenue Officer at Legora, about legal AI’s move from experimentation into daily legal work. Forquer explains why Legora has invested heavily in legal engineers, lawyers with practice experience who work alongside clients on adoption, workflow design, prompt and context engineering, and change management. The conversation also explores an emerging career path for lawyers who pair substantive legal knowledge with AI fluency, especially as firms search for people able to translate practice needs into working systems.

Legora’s acquisition strategy provides another lens on the company’s ambitions. Forquer describes a strategy aimed at building breadth across legal work while adding depth in litigation, commercial real estate, regulatory monitoring, and legal research. Recent acquisitions such as Wexler, Cadastral, and Graceview bring specialized capabilities into a broader agentic platform. Legora’s own 13-day acquisition process also serves as an example of how M&A diligence, document review, drafting, and analysis are beginning to move through shared AI environments.

A major portion of the discussion focuses on the difference between traditional workflow automation and agentic AI for legal work. Forquer draws a line between prebuilt automation and agentic systems: workflows follow predetermined steps, while agents receive a goal, gather context, form a plan, call tools, and work across longer tasks with human review. Context engineering therefore becomes increasingly important. Matter data, firm knowledge, permissions, legal skills, and connections to systems through tools such as MCP all shape the quality of agentic work. M&A due diligence already represents one area where longer-horizon agentic processes are gaining traction. Legora describes the same architecture through its agentic operating system, or aOS.

The discussion then turns to economics, pricing, and proof of adoption. Greg points to Crowell & Moring’s reported 91 percent attorney adoption and nearly 70 percent weekly usage, while Forquer argues login counts and activated licenses tell only part of the story. Legora tracks daily activity and depth of feature use, including tools such as Tabular Review, skills, playbooks, and extraction templates. Agent Pro’s shift to consumption-based pricing introduces another measurement challenge, with credits tied to usage alongside dashboards, spending controls, and project-level attribution. For law firms, a broader question follows: when AI compresses hours while increasing speed, scope, and output quality, traditional measures of efficiency and value start pulling in different directions.

The episode closes with a look at what law firm innovation leaders should prepare for next. Forquer identifies the data layer as one of the central issues behind successful agentic AI. Secure access to documents, matter-level permissions, governance, firm knowledge, and well-structured context determines how far agents progress into complex legal work. Talent matters alongside infrastructure, which brings the conversation back to legal engineers and new hybrid roles spanning law, AI, knowledge management, and data governance. The episode leaves innovation and KM leaders with a practical agenda: improve data governance, build legal engineering skills, align stakeholders around risk and outcomes, and measure value through work product, adoption depth, and client impact.

LINKS

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

Transcript

Continue Reading Patrick Forquer on Legora’s Agentic AI, Legal Engineering, and Consumption-Based Pricing

It turns out that tech companies don’t sit outside of government as just ordinary vendors. This week on The Geek in Review podcast, we welcome back Texas A&M University School of Law professor Hannah Bloch-Wehba to talk about accountability of Big Tech, AI regulations, government surveillance, and the intertwining of public authority and private tech infrastructure. Bloch-Wehba traced the dependency between the two powers all the way back to the 1930s in her article “How Tech Took Over,” in how the tech sector became a foundation for national security and economic growth.

Today’s hybrid form of governance, where Bloch-Wehba explains how a handful of private companies supply data and cloud systems, along with decision-making infrastructures across multiple governmental agencies. It is a struggle for traditional constitutional doctrines to adjust to the modern technology and the operations provided by contractors that are providing their core foundational operations.

The issues also enter into the criminal law enforcement areas and Bloch-Wehba’s “Rights, Knowledge, and Capture in the Datafied State,” discusses how trade-secret claims are throwing a barrier between proprietary data systems and criminal defendant’s ability to examine the systems that are being used to convict them in the courts. There is a strangeness in the judicial systems where corporate choices are shaping the legal process being followed, rather than corporate governance following established legal norms.

Bloch-Wehba’s “Information Law Pluralism” covers how privacy rules, audits, impact assessments, disclosure duties, researcher access, and independent review as parts of a broader system governing exactly how knowledge is shared, validated, and even produced. There seems to be no single device that transparently provides accountability. In addition, she lists how a political campaign program against states attempting to regulate AI companies and products is weakening state transparency even further.

Finally, we cover Bloch-Wehba’s “Rethinking Federal Support for Journalism” where she argues that platform payments give rise to the risk of replacing a governmental dependency gets switched for journalist and new organizations being financially tied to companies they must scrutinize. Ideas floated like an AI tax provide some alternative funding possibilities for supporting local and public-interest journalists.

LINKS

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: Jerry David DeCicca

Transcript

Continue Reading Who Governs Big Tech? Hannah Bloch-Wehba on AI Regulation, Police Surveillance, and Public Accountability

We welcome back Brad Blickstein, CEO at Blickstein Group, to discuss how private equity principles may provide law firms with an alternative approach to profitability, governance, and even long-term growth. Blickstein’s new book, WWPED: What Would Private Equity Do? was written to walk firms through how treating topics like pricing, technology, talent, and client relationships as part of the enterprise value instead of overhead expenses after year-end partnership distributions.

Pulling from Jae Um’s topics of Cream, Core, and Commodity framework, Blickstein talks about the legal work as the primary competitive battleground. Much like businesses that provide baked goods, firms have to separate the customized legal judgment from the repeatable legal processes, technology, and what alternative legal services providers offer. Law firm leaders should understand what scalable work is, begin building consistent systems to deliver that work, and truly professionalize pricing over relying upon what a partner’s gut tells them.

We also cover the Blickstein Group’s 2026 Law Firm COO Survey where technology adoption and investment ranks as the leading strategic initiative with 38.1% identified practice silos as the largest structural issue and 27% of COOs listed lack of operational authority as another prime issue. COOs are struggling with being tasked with modernizing law firms, but not given the authority to actually overcome the base issues of decentralized partnerships, competing incentives, and overall firm political structures.

Add AI into the mix, and the pricing question becomes even more important. Some two-thirds of the COOs surveyed confessed that they were not formally measuring any return on investment (ROI) in which they could later measure any law productivity or direct revenue increases. Blickstein points out that faster work in a billable hour model is not the type of math that law firms want to calculate, and that firms have to address this directly and redesign their overall pricing model on value received by the client, not hours worked by the lawyers. We all discuss the issues of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) have face in the more than 30 years since Blickstein originally published an article titled “Alternative Billing Making a Comeback.” AFAs bring with it issues of shadow billing, client trust factors, and the need to express value not tied to the amount to time spent on the work.

We also break down the corporate buyer side and address the Blickstein Group’s 18th Annual Law Department Operations Survey which identifies AI pilot projects in corporate legal departments, but very few operational deployments. These may be tied to the long running issue of poor data hygiene along with business objectives that are not clearly tied to overall corporate strategy.

Brad gets to be one of the first to answer our new question of “what’s true today that wasn’t true a year ago?” A nice lead in to our Crystal Ball question. We cover AI token pricing and having to compete with the new “AI native firms” that are spinning up from former BigLaw partners.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

LINKS

Transcript:

Continue Reading Brad Blickstein on Private Equity Thinking, AI Pricing, and the Law Firm Business Model

Fresh from AALL in Cleveland, Greg reflects on a conference filled with legal information professionals who understand how technology performs under real working conditions. These librarians purchase products, train users, support law schools and courts, and often serve as internal advocates for legal technology. Their expertise makes vendor engagement especially valuable, yet major product announcements were scarce. Marlene balances Greg’s conference report with stories from her hiking trip through Zion and Bryce Canyon, plus a brief comparison of Ohio and Utah karaoke culture.

The conversation turns to the rapid growth of innovation attorney positions across law firms and legal organizations. Greg and Marlene describe these professionals as translators who connect legal practice, technology, workflow design, and organizational change. Firms are searching beyond traditional legal career paths for people who combine technical fluency with strong interpersonal skills. For law students and junior lawyers facing uncertainty around AI, these emerging roles offer broader career options beyond the familiar associate track.

Marlene explores the growing use of AI personas and simulations for professional development. Deposition witnesses, opposing counsel, negotiation partners, and drafting reviewers now appear as interactive characters with distinct goals and behaviors. Lawyers receive a place to practice, make decisions, and receive feedback before working with clients or appearing in court. Greg connects simulation-based learning with legal fiction, including his Beyond the Model series, which uses a fictional law firm to explain AI systems, business pressures, and changes in legal work.

The discussion takes a serious turn with a reported AI benchmarking incident involving an agentic model, a breached sandbox, and unauthorized access to Hugging Face resources in search of an answer key. Greg and Marlene examine the episode as a warning about containment, accountability, and excessive faith in technical guardrails. From there, they consider the renewed importance of knowledge management and security as AI systems gain access to documents, financial information, client data, and institutional expertise. Greg predicts growing attention around AI harnesses, structured software layers designed to guide model behavior and produce predictable outputs.

Marlene closes with examples of AI moving into client intake, business qualification, and workflow decisions, including an AI legal receptionist designed for smaller firms. The larger shift involves moving beyond simple tool adoption toward redesigned workflows, staffing models, pricing structures, and client service. Token costs are creating immediate budget pressure, while clients are questioning which AI expenses belong on their bills. Greg and Marlene argue firms must connect AI spending with legal judgment, measurable value, and responsible delivery, rather than treating consumption as a proxy for progress.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

LINKS:

Here is a chronological list of the substantive topics and sources referenced in the episode:

Transcript:

Continue Reading From AI Personas to Rogue Agents: Rethinking Legal Training, Security, and Value

In this episode of The Geek in Review, Greg Lambert hosts a solo conversation with Triona Buckley, Chief Product Officer at Actionstep, about generative AI’s growing influence on mid-market law firms. Buckley challenges a common assumption about legal AI: faster task completion does not always remove friction. An associate might produce a draft within seconds, only to transfer the burden upstream to a senior lawyer responsible for reviewing sources, reconstructing reasoning, and correcting mistakes.

Buckley argues law firms should shift their attention from speed to systems. Standalone drafting and research tools address individual tasks, while system-level AI connects work across an entire legal matter. Embedded within everyday workflows, AI helps lawyers locate information, reduce administrative work, and preserve more time for client advice and professional judgment. The goal is a smoother operating model, rather than a collection of isolated tools producing faster documents.

The conversation also examines institutional knowledge, especially within firms lacking large knowledge management or innovation teams. Buckley describes an approach where AI captures decisions, context, and reasoning as lawyers work. This creates a continuously expanding record of how the firm handles matters, advises clients, and applies professional judgment. Governance still plays a central role, including clear audit trails showing whether a person or an AI agent performed each action.

Greg and Triona then explore AI as an individual tutor for junior lawyers. Remote and hybrid work have weakened the traditional apprenticeship model built around observation and informal office conversations. Drawing upon decades of firm experience, an AI tutor might question an associate’s assumptions, prompt additional research, and reinforce the firm’s preferred methods. Such systems offer structured practice while preserving the essential mentoring relationship between senior and junior lawyers.

Another major theme is the hidden cost of delayed time entry. Actionstep’s Trace passive time capture technology monitors work across practice management, email, and document applications, then presents lawyers with matter-linked, billing-ready entries. More accurate records help firms recover otherwise forgotten time while producing better data for pricing, staffing, client estimates, and profitability analysis. Those insights grow more important as clients push firms toward fixed fees and output-based pricing.

Buckley believes mid-market law firms hold several advantages during the AI transition. They often operate with fewer systems, maintain closer client relationships, and move through organizational change faster than larger enterprises. Success will still require disciplined implementation, trusted internal champions, connected data, and sustained attention to client service. Her message is optimistic but direct: firms with strong relationships, clean data, and a clear economic strategy will be better prepared for agentic AI and the changing business of law.

Actionstep’s U.S. Midsize Law Firm Priorities Report

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript:

Continue Reading AI Is Shifting the Bottleneck: Actionstep’s Triona Buckley on Building Smarter Mid-Market Law Firms

Predictions about artificial intelligence often focus on job losses and shrinking demand for lawyers. Filevine CEO and co-founder Ryan Anderson and product manager John Rizner offer a sharply different forecast. Drawing on the Jevons paradox, they argue greater efficiency will make legal services accessible to more people, encourage deeper legal research, and create work once excluded by cost. AI might reduce the effort required for individual tasks while expanding the overall volume and ambition of legal representation.

The shift holds major implications for the access-to-justice gap. Faster drafting, research, and document review would allow lawyers to serve more clients without sacrificing professional judgment. Anderson expects family law, immigration, bankruptcy, criminal defense, and employment litigation to experience some of the earliest growth. Motions, witnesses, and legal theories once abandoned over expense become economically viable, although courts face their own capacity crisis as more disputes and arguments enter the system.

Rizner explains how Filevine’s legal AI platform, Lois, applies machine learning to one of legal research’s oldest problems: traditional citators often return different results. Lois combines citation graphs with semantic analysis to locate opinions discussing related legal doctrines even when no direct citation connects the cases. A panel of models then evaluates potential conflicts and produces a structured memo. The goal is richer legal analysis focused on the precise holding or proposition a lawyer needs, rather than a simple flag attached to an entire opinion.

Accuracy still demands disciplined human review. Filevine organizes citation verification into three levels: confirming the cited case exists, determining whether the case supports the claimed proposition, and checking whether the authority is still good law. The conversation also examines Rizner’s research into how different large language models approach efficient breach of contract. OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic models produced dramatically different recommendations, revealing embedded legal and economic preferences beneath seemingly neutral answers.

The guests also explore how AI changes legal drafting, law firm economics, and the billable hour. Filevine’s acquisition of Pincites, now Lois for Word, reflects Microsoft Word’s continuing role as the shared language of legal documents, redlines, formatting, and negotiations. Efficiency does not automatically eliminate hourly billing. Lawyers might instead use saved time to produce more thoroughly researched arguments, stronger contracts, and work product approaching senior-level depth. Firms still need incentives rewarding efficiency rather than treating faster work as lost revenue.

Looking ahead, Anderson and Rizner predict a proliferation of frontier and open-source models tailored to firms, individual lawyers, and specific client relationships. Legal teams will increasingly pair proprietary knowledge with selected models to produce highly specialized analysis. Yet model choice introduces jurisprudential bias, accuracy risks, and serious training concerns for junior lawyers. AI expands the range of available options, while experienced legal judgment decides which arguments deserve trust, which sources require verification, and which advice should reach the client.

John Rizner Slides Filevine Primary Presentation – 2026

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript:

Continue Reading Why AI Will Create More Legal Work, Not Less: Filevine’s Rizner and Anderson on Research, Access, and Human Judgment