Generative Legal @ Cornell Tech

I will be opening this gathering (confirmed speakers are listed here as well). It will cover the following topics:

01

Kick-off

State of the Tech

What’s actually possible with legal AI today, and what’s still on the horizon? This opening presentation offers a grounded overview of the current state of generative AI for legal applications — how foundation models are evolving, which breakthroughs matter most for legal work, and where the technology still falls short. Attendees leave with a clear-eyed understanding of AI’s capabilities and its limits.

02

Keynote

Fireside conversations

Two fireside-style keynote Q&As punctuate the day — candid, on-stage conversations with leaders shaping the intersection of law and AI. Speakers will be announced closer to the event.

03

Panel discussion

The Client Perspective

What do in-house leaders actually want from AI-enabled law firms? Hear directly from the people buying legal services about their expectations for outside counsel. Are they demanding AI-driven efficiencies? Do they trust AI-assisted work product? How are they weighing a firm’s AI capabilities in pitches and panels? This session surfaces the client voice and helps firms understand where the market is heading.

04

Panel discussion

The Legal Team in 2029

The legal team of 2029 may prove a meaningful departure from today’s. As AI absorbs the junior work that once filled the ranks and sustained the billable hour, teams are adding engineers and other AI specialists in their place. Alongside this, what that team can actually do turns increasingly on access to frontier models, compute, and data. This session convenes leaders rethinking who sits on the legal team, how their work should be priced, and whether frontier technology will continue to be available to lawyers across markets.

05

Debate

“This house would build, not buy.”

Before a tribunal of three judges, the proposition will argue that legal teams should own the application layer: tailored legal AI, built either from the ground up or on an open-source foundation. The opposition will argue that the better course for a primary tool is a commercial legal AI platform, however customized.

Access to Justice via Tech

It was a privilege to present on Access to Justice via Tech to a distinguished delegation from Thailand’s legal community during their visit to Cornell Tech. Judge Napakamol Havanond Sawangchaeng (Cornell LL.M. ’16) also presented on Technology, Courts, and Access to Justice: Thailand’s Journey Toward a More Inclusive Judicial System. It was a wonderful exchange of ideas.

Other members of the delegation included The Honorable Chief Justice Adisak Tantiwong, President of the Supreme Court of Thailand and President of the Thai Bar, and Professor Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak (Cornell LL.M. ’83), Chairman of the Board of the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), along with colleagues from the Thai Supreme Court, the Thai Bar, and TIJ.

As Matt D’Amore, our convener, noted in his earlier post, the visit to Cornell Tech capped a broader trip to Cornell centered on remembering the life and legacy of Her Royal Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha (Cornell LL.M. ’02, J.S.D. ’05), whose years here helped anchor a lasting relationship between our two countries’ legal communities.

I found our discussion of how legal AI tools can help people access courts and shrink the justice gap on both sides of the Pacific particularly interesting. We also learned about TIJ’s “people-centered justice” framework, which puts technology in the service of accessible justice.

Cornell colleagues Greg Morrisett, Frank Pasquale, James Grimmelmann, Sateesh Nori, Jane Swanson, İrem Tümer, Maximilian Paterson, and Nate Schorr all helped make it a particularly fruitful exchange.

Law Schools Should Teach How to Integrate AI Tools Into Practice

 

The Cornell Law Forum republished an article that I wrote with Robert MacKenzie, Law Schools Should Teach How to Integrate AI Tools Into Practice. It opens,

Now that artificial intelligence tools for lawyers are widely available, we decided to integrate them for a semester in our Entrepreneurship Clinic. We have some important takeaways for legal education in general and the transactional practice of law in particular.

First, employers and educators need to account for law students who already are using AI tools in their legal work and guide new lawyers about how to use such tools appropriately.

Second, different AI products lead to wildly different results. Just demonstrating this to law students is very valuable, as it dispels the notion that AI responses can replace their independent judgment.

Third, AI’s greatest value may be in refining legal judgment for lawyers in ways that can help new and experienced lawyers alike.