Jake Heller, head of Product for CoCounsel, 成人VR视频, and Jake Porway, co-founder of DataKind and an NCSC AI consultant, will host the webinar as part of a new AI and the Courts series of monthly discussions. The first session will offer participants a foundational understanding of AI and its potential to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process, highlighting current applications of AI in the court system and the ethical implications of its use.

Launched in June, the consortium is a joint initiative designed to educate the judiciary about the opportunities and challenges of evolving AI and generative AI solutions, enabling judges and legal and court professionals to make informed decisions about adoption and use.

鈥淚鈥檓 thrilled to help bring together the legal industry鈥檚 top AI experts from the courts, law firms, academia, and technology organizations,鈥� said Heller. 鈥淭he pace of innovation in the legal industry is fast and furious, and 成人VR视频 has a long tradition of customer collaboration and leadership in applying cutting-edge technologies to legal research and legal workflows. The AI Policy Consortium for Law and Courts will be a tremendous resource for the judiciary and legal professionals seeking to keep up with the quickly evolving AI and generative AI tools available to augment the practice of law.鈥�

鈥淗aving more than 1,000 participants registered for the webinar speaks to the judiciary and legal profession鈥檚 eagerness to better understand AI solutions and their impact on how legal professionals work,鈥� Porway said. 鈥淥ur consortium is filling a gap in the industry as courts and legal professionals navigate how to best evaluate, adopt, and sanction the uses of generative AI. I鈥檓 excited to introduce the AI and the Courts series with an exploration of the current and future ways AI is used in the court system as well as its challenges and implications.鈥�

The consortium鈥檚 four workstreams 鈥� AI governance and ethics, workforce readiness for AI adoption, rules and practices pertaining to AI, and AI鈥檚 impact on access to justice 鈥� examine the opportunities and risks of AI and generative AI. The second webinar, Ethics of Generative AI: A Guide for Judges and Legal Professionals, will be held on Sept. 18. Future topics will include AI鈥檚 impact on the judicial and legal workforce, how AI can enhance court efficiency, and more.

Register for the webinar . To learn more about on the consortium, read the press release.

What truly stood out to me at ILTACON was the energy and enthusiasm of the event. I was struck by how the collaborative atmosphere among attendees 鈥� ranging from seasoned legal professionals to tech enthusiasts 鈥� created an enriching environment for knowledge exchange and networking.

The conference center was brimming with excited representatives from law firms and vendors showcasing innovative solutions. Everyone was grappling with how 鈥� and when 鈥� generative AI could transform the practice of law.

The insightful sessions on cybersecurity, data privacy, and the future of legal tech trends provided valuable takeaways that are likely to shape the industry in the coming years. Overall, the conference underscored the rapid advancements and the pivotal role of technology in transforming the legal landscape.

CIO insights

I moderated a among G100 and G200 CIOs. The CIOs discussed the evolving role of the document management system, the opportunity for generative AI to drive efficiency improvements now and in the future, the evolving expectations of corporate law departments, and data security practices.

Audience attendees seemed especially interested in the tenor of the conversation around transformative AI solutions. One of the CIOs said that his firm was using CoCounsel as its AI assistant and that lawyers at the firm were eager adopters. He mentioned wanting to buy more seats. That was a fun moment for me!

CoCounsel 2.0

We hosted a number of extremely well-attended events, including customer dinners, an appreciation event, and other celebrations. The opportunity to share perspectives and learn from law firms was invaluable.

I was thrilled to see that the announcement of CoCounsel 2.0 seemed to generate the most excitement among product news. Jake Heller, head of Product for CoCounsel, 成人VR视频, showcased a side-by-side view on the speed of the application, highlighting how CoCounsel 2.0 moves more than 3 times faster than the current version CoCounsel Core. After customers saw that, they were clamoring for access.

On a personal level, I enjoyed seeing so many former colleagues and peers. The legal community is a tight-knit group. It was amazing to walk the halls of the conference centers and catch up with so many great people.

Check out other 成人VR视频聽ILTACON recaps, including the legal industry鈥檚 reaction to the聽launch of CoCounsel 2.0. and highlights from the 聽鈥淗ow Today鈥檚 Lawyers Are Enhancing Their Practice with AI鈥� session.

CoCounsel 2.0 draws on its robust set of specialized skills to handle complex, multi-step work, helping professionals quickly pinpoint key knowledge in vast databases, thoroughly communicate sophisticated information, and complete essential work with unprecedented speed.聽CoCounsel 2.0 generates answers three times faster than the current version, operates more intuitively, and delivers more thorough, nuanced results.

It also tests combining the unique capabilities and strengths from OpenAI, Google, and 成人VR视频, such as its industry-leading content and legal technology.聽 CoCounsel 2.0 will also bring additional and upgraded capabilities for legal professionals.

The just-launched Claims Explorer in Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel simplifies claims research by enabling legal professionals to enter facts and identify applicable claims or counterclaims. , the end-to-end GenAI-enabled solution from 成人VR视频, accelerates drafting by as much as 50%.

鈥湷扇薞R视频 is here for one reason: to ensure our customers reliably and safely realize the greatest possible value from this generational technology鈥攁s quickly as possible,鈥� said David Wong, chief product officer, 成人VR视频. 鈥淐oCounsel 2.0 is founded upon our ability to combine our data, expertise, and trusted content with cutting-edge technology. Partnering with leading LLM providers is a key part of our strategy and will help us deliver even more for our customers, enabling them to accomplish what they need to evolve their businesses more quickly and more effectively than ever.鈥�

Wong will discuss CoCounsel 2.0 with Jake Heller, head of Product for CoCounsel, 成人VR视频, and Kriti Sharma, chief product officer of Legaltech, 成人VR视频, in their ILTACON session, 鈥淢aximizing Impact and ROI: Harnessing the Full Potential of GenAI in the Legal Profession.鈥�

鈥淐oCounsel 2.0 is more powerful than the first generation of CoCounsel and accessible from within 成人VR视频 products 鈥� beginning with Westlaw Precision and Practical Law 鈥� plus from within Microsoft 365, beginning with Word, Teams, and Outlook. It’s exactly what our legal customers are looking for,鈥� Sharma said. 鈥淒ebuting CoCounsel 2.0 at ILTACON is the perfect fit, as it鈥檚 all about realizing successful legal strategies for transforming the legal industry. I’m thrilled for the opportunity to share our powerful CoCounsel 2.0 vision and discuss how legal professionals can embrace professional-grade GenAI to streamline their workflows and boost productivity while maximizing ROI.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檝e always been on the leading edge of emerging technology and it鈥檚 incredibly fulfilling to experience our vision 鈥� of providing every professional we serve with a GenAI assistant 鈥� becoming reality for our customers,鈥� Heller said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e seeing a growing maturity in the adoption of AI, and legal professionals are ready for the practical application and optimization of GenAI. CoCounsel 2.0 enables them to use GenAI to its fullest potential to drive efficiencies and productivity gains 鈥� working with the tools they already use every day.鈥�

For more on CoCounsel 2.0, read the press release. Check out more Innovation Blog posts for product news, leader insights, and customer perspectives on how 成人VR视频 is paving the way for the future of professionals.

From an innovation perspective, the growth in lawyer productivity is a top takeaway.

鈥淟aw firms鈥� recovering productivity rates may be an early indicator of the impact AI and generative AI tools are having on their ability to streamline workflows and free up lawyers for more strategic activities,鈥� said Raghu Ramanathan, president, Legal Professionals, 成人VR视频.

Lawyer productivity growth turned positive 鈥� coming in at 0.4% 鈥� for the first time since the transactional boom of Q4 2021, when pandemic lockdowns were ending and the U.S. economy was strong. In Q2 2024, 54% of firms had lawyers billing more hours compared to Q2 2023.

Other notable figures from the report

• Growth in overall demand was led by the counter-cyclical practices of litigation 鈥� which grew at 3.4% 鈥� followed by bankruptcy, up 2.4%, and labor & employment, up 2.2%.
• Demand for transactional practices, which includes general corporate, M&A, real estate and tax practices, returned to growth mode for law firms after almost three years of subpar performance. Transactional fees worked 鈥� a proxy for revenue 鈥� saw the greatest Q2 resurgence of any cyclical practice group, driven by increased billing rates.
• Worked rate growth was at 6.6%, up from 6.4% in Q1, which saw the fastest Q1 pace of growth since the Great Financial Crisis.

For more insights, read the press release or download a copy of the Q2 2024 LFFI report.

First, let鈥檚 settle on terminology. We should use terms like 鈥渆rrors鈥� or 鈥渋naccuracies鈥� instead of 鈥渉allucinations.鈥� 鈥淗allucination鈥� sounds smart, like we鈥檙e AI insiders and know the lingo, but the term is often defined narrowly as a fabrication, which is just one type of error. Customers will be as concerned, if not more concerned, about non-fabricated statements from non-fabricated cases that, despite being real, are still incorrect for the question. 鈥淓rrors鈥� or 鈥渋naccuracies鈥� are much better and more encompassing ways to describe the full range of problems we care about.

Next, let鈥檚 consider types of errors and risk of harm from each. Error rates are often just reported as a percentage, which is a binary view 鈥� either an answer has an error or it does not, but that鈥檚 overly simplistic. It conflates the big differences in risk of harm from different types of errors and ignores the potential benefit of lengthy and nuanced answers that contain a minor error.

There are dozens of ways to categorize errors in LLM-generated answers, but we鈥檝e found three to be most helpful:

1. Incorrect references in otherwise correct answers
2. Incorrect statements in otherwise correct answers
3. Answers that are entirely incorrect

A fourth category of error that sometimes comes up in discussions with customers is about inconsistency, where the system provides a correct answer one time, then later, when the same exact question is submitted, the answer is different and sometimes less complete or incorrect. Minor differences in wording are very common when submitting the same question. Substantial differences are uncommon, but when they do result in an error, the error simply falls into one of the three categories above.

Incorrect references refer to situations where an answer is correct, but the footnote references provided for a statement of law does not stand for the precise proposition of the statement. Fortunately, risk of harm with these types of errors appears to be low, since they鈥檙e easy to detect when researchers review the primary law cited. Answers with these types of errors still offer substantial benefit to researchers because they get them to the right answer quickly, often with a lot of nuance about the issues, but the researcher still has to use additional searches or other research techniques to find the best source material.

Incorrect statements in otherwise correct answers are often obvious in the answer. An answer might say the law is X in paragraphs 1 鈥� 4 and then, inexplicably, declare the law is Y in paragraph 5, then go back to stating the law is X in paragraph 6. Risk of harm with these errors also appears to be low, since the inconsistency is obvious and prompts the researcher to dig into the primary law to figure it out. Answers with these types of errors still offer some benefit, since they point the user to highly relevant primary law, explain the issues, and help the researcher with what to look for when reviewing primary law.

Answers that are entirely wrong are more problematic. These are quite rare in our testing, but they do occur. Often a simple check of the primary sources cited will resolve the error quickly, but sometimes additional research is needed beyond that. These answers still offer some benefit to researchers, since they often point to relevant primary law in a way that is more effective and useful than traditional searching, but they also come with greater risk of harm, since the incorrectness of the answer is not obvious, and simply reviewing cited sources does not always resolve the issue.

These sound scary, but researchers have been dealing with this type of issue for ages. For instance, secondary sources can be incredibly helpful for summarizing complex areas of law and offering insights, but they sometimes fail to discuss important nuance, and sometimes the law has changed since they were written. If researchers relied on them alone, without doing further research, they would be at risk of harm, even if they consulted cited primary sources.

Yet we would never tell researchers to avoid using secondary sources because they can sometimes be beautifully written, very convincing, and utterly wrong. What we tell researchers is they can be enormously helpful for research but must be used as part of a sound research process where primary law is reviewed, and tools like KeyCite, Key Numbers, and statutes annotations are used to make sure the researcher has a complete understanding of the law.

Individual research tools have rarely been perfect. Their value has been in improving sound research practices. Stephen Embry captured this idea well in his recent blog post, :

鈥淭he point is not whether Gen AI can provide perfect answers. It鈥檚 whether, given the speed and efficiency of using the tools and their error rates compared to those of humans, we can develop mitigation strategies that reduce errors. That鈥檚 what we do with humans. (I.E. read the cases before you cite them, please).鈥�

But if you must check primary resources and engage in sound research practices when using a research tool, is there really any benefit to using it? If it improves overall research times or helps surface important nuance that might otherwise be missed, the answer is yes.

Prior to launching AI-Assisted Research, we knew large language models would not produce answers free of errors 100% of the time, so we asked attorneys if the tool would be valuable even with an occasional error, and if we should we release it now or wait until it was perfect?

Most of the attorneys said, 鈥淚 want this now.鈥� They saw clear benefits and thought an occasional error was worth it for the extraordinary benefits of the new tool, since they would easily uncover an error when reading through primary law. They said that if they knew the answers were generated by AI, they would never trust them and would verify by checking primary sources. If there was an error, those primary sources (and further standard research checks, like looking at KeyCite flags, statute annotations, etc.) would reveal it. That鈥檚 why we put AI in the name of this CoCounsel skill, so researchers would be encouraged to check primary sources.

Our customers have submitted over 1.5 million questions to AI-Assisted Research in Westlaw Precision. Generally, three big research benefits come up in discussions:

1. It gives them a helpful overview before diving into primary sources.
2. It uncovers sub-issues, related issues, or other nuances they might not have found as quickly with traditional approaches.
3. It points them to the best primary sources for the question more quickly and efficiently than traditional methods of research.

Customers have described these benefits with great enthusiasm, telling us AI-Assisted Research 鈥渟aves hours鈥� and is a 鈥済ame changer.鈥�

Lawyers know they need to rely on the law when writing a brief or advising a client, and the law lies in primary law documents (cases, statutes, regulations, etc.). Researchers have always known that when they鈥檙e looking at something that is not a primary law document, such as a treatise section, a bar journal article, or an answer from AI, they must check the primary law before relying on it to advise a client or write a brief. That鈥檚 why we cite to primary law in the answers and why we provide an even greater selection of relevant primary and secondary sources under the answers 鈥� to make this checking easy.

But what about ? That lawyer submitted his brief without ever reading any of the cases he was citing.

That can鈥檛 be the standard for considering the value of products like Westlaw that provide a rich set of research tools that make it easy to check primary sources, understand their validity, and find related material. If the standard were, a user might not read any of the primary law, many high-value research capabilities today would be deemed useless.

The way to dramatically reduce the risk of harm from LLM-based results or any other individual research tool, like secondary sources, is what it has always been: sound research practices.

Jean O鈥橤rady conveyed this beautifully in :

鈥淒oes generative AI pose truly unique risks for legal research? In my opinion, there is no risk that could not be completely mitigated by the use of traditional legal research skills. The only real risk is lawyers losing the ability to read, comprehend and synthesize information from primary sources.鈥�

At 成人VR视频, we鈥檙e continuing to work on ways to reduce all types of errors in generative AI results, and we expect rapid improvement in the coming months. Because of the way large language models work, even with retrieval augmented generation, eliminating errors is difficult, and it鈥檚 going to be quite some time before answers are completely free of errors. That鈥檚 the bad news.

The good news is that harm from these types of errors can be reduced dramatically with common research practices. It鈥檚 why we鈥檙e not only investing in generative AI projects. We鈥檙e also continuing to build out a full suite of research tools that help with the entire research process because that process will continue to be important.

Even when errors get reduced to just 1%, that will still mean that 100% of answers need to be checked, and thorough research practices employed.

We鈥檙e currently involved in two consortium efforts to provide benchmarking for generative AI products. When generative AI products for legal research are tested against these benchmarks, I expect we鈥檒l see the following:

• None of the products will produce answers that are all entirely free of errors.
• All the products will require sound research practices, including checking primary law documents, to reduce risk of harm.
• When sound research practices are employed, the risk of harm from errors in the answers is small and no different in magnitude from the risks we see with traditional research tools like secondary sources or Boolean search.

Even in the age of generative AI, sound research practices remain important and are here to stay. As Aravind Srinivas, CEO and cofounder of , said,

鈥淭he journey doesn鈥檛 end once you get an answer鈥� the journey begins after you get an answer.鈥�

I think Aravind鈥檚 statement applies perfectly to legal research and to the art of crafting legal arguments. Even as our teams strive to reduce errors further, we should keep in mind the benefits of generative AI and weigh them against the new and traditional risks of harm in tools that are less than perfect. When used as part of a thorough research process, these new tools offer tremendous benefits with very little risk of harm.

This is a guest post from Mike Dahn, head of Westlaw Product Management, 成人VR视频.

鈥淭here was a significant focus on the practical application and optimization of generative AI,鈥� said Valerie McConnell, senior director, CoCounsel, 成人VR视频. 鈥淎ALL attendees wanted to learn how to use AI tools in the most effective ways possible. They were looking for strategies to integrate generative AI seamlessly into their workflows. This shift in dialogue reflects a growing maturity in the adoption of AI, highlighting a readiness to leverage these technologies to their fullest potential.鈥�

Rachel Beithon, senior product manager, Westlaw AI & Analytics, 成人VR视频, also noticed attendees鈥� heightened interest in AI tools.

“I was a little concerned that after the last 18 months of near-constant AI discussion in the legal industry that there might be some fatigue setting in,鈥� Beithon said. 鈥淏ut people were so eager to talk more about generative AI solutions.鈥�

Claims Explorer, the new generative AI skill in that launched during AALL, was among the solutions sparking conversations with attendees.

鈥淭hey were absolutely thrilled with Claims Explorer and its use cases,鈥� Beithon said. 鈥淚t was obvious how much time this would save when doing the often-arduous task of exploring potential claims.鈥�

CoCounsel was also generating buzz.

鈥淥ne of the most frequent topics of discussion during our CoCounsel sessions concerned our integrations with Microsoft products and document management systems,鈥� McConnell said. 鈥淭here seems to be a strong interest in using generative AI seamlessly across multiple platforms and systems. Attendees recognized the potential efficiency and productivity gains from having CoCounsel work with the tools they already use daily.鈥�

Generative AI enabling small-scale innovation

The law librarian community鈥檚 readiness to implement generative AI stood out to Zach Warren, manager, Enterprise Content, 成人VR视频 Institute.

鈥淚鈥檓 intrigued by how much courts and government legal departments will play into this tech-enabled future,鈥� Warren said. 鈥淚 saw one presentation given by Judge Keven O鈥橤rady of Kansas where he explained how his court built a 鈥榯riage鈥� tool, helping categorize his family law docket into different pathways based on how much attention different litigants need. It鈥檚 this sort of small investment that can pay huge dividends, and particularly with GenAI allowing for more small-scale innovation, I鈥檓 excited to see what courts and government come up with to do more with less in the coming years.鈥�

Empowering the next generation of legal professionals

Beithon and McConnell were pleased with the feedback on their Day 2 session, 鈥淪ummoning the Magic Words: Crafting Prompts to be an AI Wizard.鈥�

鈥淲e both heard over and over throughout the conference how valuable that session was and how much more excited attendees were to try out prompting techniques in the Westlaw and CoCounsel Core AI skills, and to teach those to other users at their organization,鈥� Beithon said.

鈥淎ttendees were not just interested in refining their own skills but were also focused on how to empower the next generation of legal professionals,鈥� McConnell added. 鈥淭here was a strong emphasis on teaching law students, associates, and new lawyers the art of prompting. This proactive approach to education and training recognizes the importance of ensuring that everyone in the legal field can harness the full capabilities of generative AI.鈥�

Warren agreed, noting AALL鈥檚 optimistic tone.

鈥淭his year鈥檚 conference was shaped with optimism about the role law librarians can play as shepherds of this new paradigm rather than simply impacted by it,鈥� Warren said. 鈥淭his change comes as no surprise to me, as the 成人VR视频 Institute has noted that librarian and research positions are beginning to increase at law firms, reversing a long-standing trend. The crucial role law librarians play has been noted, both anecdotally and in dollars and cents, and law librarians know that now is the time to make their influence felt.鈥�