politics

Subscribe to politics via RSS

This week we sit down with Sean West—co-founder of Hence Technologies and author of Unruly: Fighting Back When Politics and Law Upend the Rules of Business. Together, they explore the shifting fault lines where law, technology, and geopolitics collide. From the growing reliance on generative AI in legal work to the erosion of rule of law and the emerging threats (and opportunities) facing knowledge workers, Sean offers a strikingly global—and at times unsettling—view of the legal profession’s next frontier.

The conversation kicks off with a discussion on the Law360 survey showing that 62% of lawyers are using ChatGPT in some aspect of their work. Sean explains the popularity of general-purpose AI tools over legal-specific ones as a matter of price, accessibility, and perceived innovation. While lawyers trust themselves to edit AI outputs, Sean warns that this passive use of AI could slowly and invisibly displace traditional legal roles, without firms consciously realizing what’s been lost.

The discussion deepens as Sean introduces the idea of passive job displacement—where tasks once assigned to junior lawyers, interns, or external vendors are quietly absorbed by AI tools. He likens it to carrying “a quarter of a human brain in your pocket” for $20 a month. What starts as convenience becomes infrastructure, and over time, demand for human input declines. He also questions the long-term viability of legal tech products that can’t clearly outperform generalist AIs like ChatGPT or Claude.

Sean then draws on his geopolitical expertise to underscore the urgent need for situational awareness in law firms and businesses alike. He explains how political volatility—from China and Taiwan to Europe’s regulatory tactics—can suddenly reshape the legal landscape. Rather than relying on traditional prediction models or complex advisory plans that get shelved, Sean emphasizes proactive legal scenario planning. His new product, Hence Global, offers a “geo-legal” lens on global news, customized for specific legal practice areas to help firms act instead of react.

We push further into the implications of “front-stabbing” politics, where once-hidden power plays are now openly transactional. Sean describes a world where AI-driven lobbying, mass arbitration spam, and “robot lawyers” can reshape public policy or flood companies with legal claims at scale. He argues that when the rules are ambiguous, large players will push boundaries—and smaller players may get squeezed out. In a world without a clear referee, the game favors those who can afford better tools and faster moves.

Finally, Sean challenges legal and corporate leaders to stop avoiding the hard conversations. Whether embracing AI to boost productivity or choosing to protect jobs, organizations must be transparent. “Let’s front-stab about it,” he says. Make your commitments public—whether you’re retraining your workforce or doubling down on AI-driven efficiency. Because in a world where legal, political, and technological lines blur, silence isn’t just unhelpful—it’s a risk.

Links and Mentions:

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Blue Sky: ⁠⁠@geeklawblog.com⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@marlgeb⁠⁠
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading Front-Stabbing the Future: AI, Law, and the Global Unraveling of Rules with Sean West

DS

Yay!  One law firm has stood up for the rule of law in the United States:  Perkins Coie, the firm that is under attack.  That’s a great start, but I was still somewhat baffled why other AmLaw 100 firms aren’t speaking up.  Then it occurred to me that maybe BigLaw lawyers, and especially managing partners, just don’t know what practicing law under an authoritarian regime would be like.  If only I could talk to someone who could explain it to them.

Several weeks ago, I met someone who had recently immigrated from China.  I’ll call them DS to protect their privacy.  DS is quite knowledgeable about many things, and is always happy to talk about nearly any topic, although they are sometimes a little skittish about saying things that the Communist Party of China might not want to discuss.  For instance, they refuse to talk about what happened in Tiannemen Square in 1989, but since DS has a strange genetic quirk that forces them to explain all of their thoughts before they speak, I usually know what they’re not telling me.  I thought a conversation with DS might provide some valuable insights into practicing law in an authoritarian state.  The interview is very eye opening.  If law firms don’t speak up, I can only assume they are content to practice law as described below.

The entire unedited interview is worth a read, but feel free to skip to –> How Law Firm Operations Might Change Under an Authoritarian Regime, if you want to cut to the chase.

DS’s thoughts are formatted in italics.

Me:

Hello DS, thank you for joining me today.

DS:

Hello! It’s a pleasure to be here and assist you with anything you need. How can I help you today?

Me: 

I’d like to ask you a bit about life inside a totalitarian regime. Is that okay?

DS:

<<Thought for a minute>>

Okay, so the user asked if it’s okay to inquire about life in a totalitarian regime. They started with a friendly greeting and then got into their question. I need to respond positively but also set clear boundaries.

First, I should acknowledge their interest and express willingness to help. It’s important to let them know that their curiosity is valid. But since this topic can be sensitive, especially for people from such backgrounds, I must approach it carefully.

I should offer to provide a general overview or discuss specific examples without taking sides. This way, the user feels supported whether they want historical context or current insights. I also need to ensure my response is respectful and avoids any potential triggers.

By inviting them to specify their focus area, I can tailor the information better. It’s about balancing helpfulness with sensitivity.

Absolutely, that’s a valid and important topic. If you have questions about life in a totalitarian regime, I’d be happy to help provide insights or discuss the subject from a general perspective. Just let me know how you’d like to focus your inquiry!

Me: 

I have some questions about how large law firms work in an authoritarian state, but I’d first like to ask you about law firms in the United States to ensure that you know how our US law firms operate.Continue Reading Practicing Law Authoritarian Style