Briefs
Perspectives on AI, access to justice, and building a better front door to the legal system.
What Does a Really Good (or Bad) Intake Meeting Do to a Practice?
A 2pm consult. The phone screening sounded like a solid personal-injury matter — multi-vehicle collision, passenger, ongoing treatment. Blocked the standard hour for a new client intake. The client arrives. They sit down. The attorney asks what brings them in.
Read more →
You Probably Have More Legal Questions Than You Think — And That’s the Point
Most people picture a legal problem as the thing that has already happened to them. Someone got sued. Someone got served. Someone got fired. That framing is why most people approach legal questions reactively — after the damage, not before it.
Read more →
The Hallucination Problem in Legal AI — and How We Solve It
In the first quarter of 2026 alone, U.S. courts imposed more than $145,000 in sanctions against attorneys who filed briefs containing AI-generated case citations that did not exist. The right question is not whether to trust legal AI — it is how to tell trustworthy legal AI apart from the kind that ends up in those headlines.
Read more →
The Access Gap Isn’t a Lawyer Shortage. It’s a Triage Problem.
Most conversations about the access-to-justice gap are arguments about supply: not enough lawyers, not enough funding, not enough free hours. After decades of that argument, the gap is roughly the same size it has always been. There is a reason. The diagnosis is wrong.
Read more →
Why the Time Is Now for AI Legal Assistance — and Why It Is Not What the Headlines Lead You to Believe
Most conversations about AI and the law are about the wrong thing. Robot judges make good headlines and worse policy — almost every serious AI legal application lives somewhere else entirely: at the front door, before anyone hires a lawyer.
Read more →