We’ve been having this same discussion here for a few months. We’ve identified a need to strengthen our Billing Guidelines around the use of AI by our law firms including what is and is not acceptable. Our expectation is that if the firm uses AI to reduce time spent on routine tasks, such as drafting Complaints, filings, etc. and communications, that they are (1) responsible for ensuring accuracy of those deliverables, (2) reducing the amount of time billed on those tasks by the partner, associate or paralegal, and (3) firms are not permitted to submit time (or costs) associated with the AI’s “work”. We’ve seen firms begin to roll out the use of AI in the e-discovery managed reviews which has reduced those fees, but this is solely reliant on the firm’s truthfulness around how much time was saved by using the AI instead of human reviewers.
Content you might like
What’s the biggest hype vs. reality gap in AI pentesting today?
Coverage—AI claims full scan, but misses deep flaws29%
Speed—AI is fast but error-prone59%
Creativity—AI scripts can’t improvise18%
Integration—vendor tools don’t plug into DevSecOps35%
We’ve been having this same discussion here for a few months.
We’ve identified a need to strengthen our Billing Guidelines around the use of AI by our law firms including what is and is not acceptable.
Our expectation is that if the firm uses AI to reduce time spent on routine tasks, such as drafting Complaints, filings, etc. and communications, that they are (1) responsible for ensuring accuracy of those deliverables, (2) reducing the amount of time billed on those tasks by the partner, associate or paralegal, and (3) firms are not permitted to submit time (or costs) associated with the AI’s “work”.
We’ve seen firms begin to roll out the use of AI in the e-discovery managed reviews which has reduced those fees, but this is solely reliant on the firm’s truthfulness around how much time was saved by using the AI instead of human reviewers.