by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmAdopting AI – South Carolina Lawyer
ADOPTING AI: IT’S NOT IF – IT’S HOW
In an article for South Carolina Lawyer, Kim, Lahey & Killough firm founder Doug Kim discusses the risks and rewards of the responsible use of AI for attorneys and law firms. While most in the legal profession bring a cautious approach to the use of AI, this article expounds on the positive benefits of the use of the transformative technology for both attorneys and their clients.
Will AI replace lawyers? No. AI will not replace lawyers but instead will serve as a powerful tool to enhance their capabilities, much like how a high-quality instrument amplifies a professional musician’s training and expertise. AI cannot replace the essential human elements of legal practice. Complex legal matters require nuanced judgment, ethical reasoning, and the personal connection that only human lawyers can provide. AI lacks the ability to make decisions based on empathy, interpret circumstances subjectively, or understand the professional responsibilities that guide legal practice. These human elements remain irreplaceable and essential to effective legal representation.
What AI can do is make lawyers more effective and efficient.
When properly implemented by skilled professionals, AI can automate routine tasks such as legal research, document review, and initial drafting, allowing attorneys to focus on complex strategic work that requires human judgment, ethical reasoning, and personal client relationships.
However, skilled implementation is key as recent court cases involving fabricated AI-generated citations underscore the critical importance of proper training, verification and human oversight.
For clients, responsible AI adoption translates to more efficient service delivery, reduced costs, and higher quality representation, as smaller firms can compete more effectively with larger ones by leveraging technology.
The legal profession is moving toward a future where firms that embrace AI responsibly will provide superior service at competitive rates, while those that resist this evolution risk falling behind.
Ultimately, AI represents not a threat to the legal profession but an opportunity to deliver better outcomes more efficiently, provided it’s implemented with the skill, oversight, and ethical standards that effective legal practice demands.
Read the entire article below, or online here on pages 32-35 and 45 of South Carolina Lawyer.
ADOPTING AI: IT’S NOT IF – IT’S HOW
by Doug Kim for South Carolina Lawyer Magazine, a publication of the South Carolina Bar.
Last year, Thomson Reuters released a report[1] stating that 82% of lawyers surveyed said AI can be applied to legal work, but only 51% said that it should. That leads to two questions. What can technically do and what are its risks and rewards? Second, how should lawyers use AI? Part 1 of this article addresses the first question. Part 2, which will appear in an upcoming issue of South Carolina Lawyer, provides my views on the latter question.
Circulating among the profession is the fear that AI will just replace lawyers entirely. This is simply not true. Medium and high complex legal tasks require nuanced understanding, interpretation, and application of the law to specific facts, which are skills that AI lacks. AI cannot make judgment calls based on ethical considerations, empathy, and subjective interpretations of circumstances; these human aspects of legal practice cannot be replicated. Further, AI cannot replace the personal connection that lawyers establish with their clients. Importantly, lawyers are bound by rules of professional responsibility, including confidentiality, competent representation, and client advocacy. AI lacks the ability to honor – or indeed even comprehend – these obligations.
If AI will not replace lawyers, then what good is it? AI is a technology that underlies the next generation of tools to be used in the legal profession. Like all tools, the education, experience, and skill of the user makes a dramatic impact on the effectiveness and quality of the work product created with the tool. For example, a professional musician would benefit greatly from the dramatically improved performance of a Jackson Soloist guitar as the Jackson provides better tone, performance, speed and overall playability. A novice would unlikely know the difference and the performance of the novice would not be materially improved.
According to one McKinsey report, skilled users can leverage AI to replace up to 30% of their work, leading to increased efficiency and productivity – the operative work being “skilled.” AI is not a substitute for education, experience or skill. While AI can accelerate education and skill development in the legal process by automating routine tasks and allowing legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work, it is not a substitute. Without this requisite skill, the AI tool results in little benefit and can even provide a determent.
The real world provides examples of this risk. Just ask the lawyers that, despite clear judicial warnings and sanctions, continue to submit AI-generated court documents with fabricated (also called “hallucinatory”) content. For example, in Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4928 * (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2025), the expert witness admitted that his declaration inadvertently included citations to two non-existent academic articles, and incorrectly cited the authors of a third article. These errors apparently originated from use of GPT in drafting his declaration and the expert failed to verify these fake citations to academic articles before including them in his declaration.
Indeed, the problem has affected how judges take testimony. In In re Matter of Weber, 2024 NY Slip Op 24258 (N.Y. Surrogates Ct. Oct. 10, 2024), the trial court refused to accept as accurate without more back-up calculations performed by artificial intelligence. The court stated that due to the nature of the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and its inherent reliability issues, before evidence which has been generated by an artificial intelligence product or system is introduced, counsel has an affirmative duty to disclose the use of artificial intelligence, and the evidence sought to be admitted should properly be subject to an admissibility hearing prior to its admission.
Properly used, AI tools can help lawyers automate manual processes and work more efficiently. For example, when using the AI tool for patent application drafting, more time should be spent at the beginning on the drawings of a patent application and generating a bullet point documents of key features of the invention’s structure and function that are novel and non-obvious (patentability requirements). This shift changes how patent lawyers invest their time, but they do it to more effectively use the AI tool.
Similarly, AI-powered case law research tools can help lawyers more easily find leading case law and guiding legal principles than old-fashioned Boolean searches, but only if lawyers can move away from that conceptual framework. Otherwise, a search term mentality fails to take best advantage of the tool.
Just as important – and unlike traditional computer-aided research – AI can suggest the best language to support arguments. Indeed, AI can also help lawyers quickly produce initial drafts of motions, legal briefs, contracts, and settlement agreements, which in the past have been time intensive. Improper use of AI, however, will cause the output to be either less useful or even counterproductive.
More generally, AI will change how legal services are provided. Routine tasks, such as legal research, document review, and billing can become automated, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work, especially those that require critical thinking based upon the facts and circumstances of the parties’ case and desired outcome. AI can assist in predicting case outcomes, advising clients, and developing informed strategies. All that requires, however, that lawyers re-order what they do and how they do it. If a lawyer traditionally spends 30% of her time in complex cases reviewing documents, it will require substantial willpower to pivot to a profoundly different allocation of time.
This will also impact the profession as a whole. While not replacing lawyers, AI will create a demand for lawyers with specialized skills in areas that require complex problem-solving, critical thinking, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Substantively, with AI fulfilling some of the more mundane tasks and day-to-day needs, the need for “specialized” areas (e.g., tax, securities, environmental, employment, intellectual property, complex litigation, and the like) will increase. But that also means that lawyers who have made a good living out of routine tasks will face an increasing challenge.
I experienced a movement years ago when I was a computer programmer prior to becoming a lawyer. The same positions were being put forward that AI was going to replace computer engineers. This did not happen. In computer science, AI, especially large language models like Chat-GPT, proved to be just another tool in the toolbox and made experienced programmers more efficient and accurate, enhanced code quality, reduced development costs, reduced time to market, improved quality control and generally made for a better work-product; especially experienced programmers. Properly implemented, AI will do the same for the legal profession. AI will not replace the lawyer.[2] However, attorneys that adopt AI will replace those that do not.
Further, the smaller law firm will become more competitive through leveraging technology just as we saw with online research, communications tools, timekeeping and billing, and practice and case management software. By automating certain tasks, smaller firms can take on more clients without needing additional resources and can maximize profitability while delivering improved legal services to clients. This levels the playing field and allows smaller firms to compete with the larger ones so that the dreaded overhead of the larger firm will become even more of a burden that results in higher fees and less value to the client.
This is not to say that the transition will not be bumpy. While adopting technology eventually reduces overhead and provides more value to clients, the legal profession has always faced challenges when it comes to innovation and technology. Further, most of the bar was licensed prior to the release of the iPhone.[3] This “slow to adopt” challenge stems from the reality of technical competence, or lack thereof, and the resistance to change which stems from being severely risk averse.
In 2017, the Association of Corporate Counsel published A Seat at the Head of the Table: From Lawyer To CEO? and stated, “Risk aversion. Most law firm cultures are built around a strong bias to risk aversion. However, … lawyers must expand their perception from ‘no’ to ‘yes,’ even if the next question is “how?”[4] While this publication was discussing lawyers transitioning to CEOs, it is applicable to the current discussion of whether to “use” AI. It is not a matter of yes or no, but rather when and how. While lawyers didn’t go to law school to be computer programmers, the technical requirements of modern legal practice cannot be ignored.[5] By analogy, the craftsman who used hand tools for many decades may be slow to adopt power tools for the same reasons that lawyers will be slow to adopt AI: habit, inertia, fear of change, inflexibility, etc. Yet history shows that those who adopted power tools surpassed those who did not in short order.
Disruptive technologies are just that – disruptive – and seeing the coming changes and being open to this disruption in the legal industry is critical. Disruption often comes without warning and is not anticipated by the masses. A quote often attributed to Henry Ford is, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Adapting to disruptive technologies is important to success and potentially the survival of the modern law firm.
AI is growing faster in its development than prior disruptive technologies. This creates both risks which are manageable and opportunities which will further the profession. These risks can be effectively managed with a few simple guiding principles:
- Understand how the AI works, including its training model and limitations.
- Implement AI to a specific application and avoid general, open AI tools.
- Make sure you are always in control of the technology and be accountable for its use (avoid the chatbot).
- Try to only use specific AI that has private, dedicated connections to large language models (as opposed to public data lakes like used by ChatGPT).
- Use AI tools that do not use your input to train with the AI engine and keep input confidential.
- Always have a live person review the content and work product.
The power of AI and the benefits that it can bring will create a separation in the legal profession, split into those that properly adopt AI and those that do not. The split will manifest in lawyers’ ability to deliver higher quality legal services and work product, the faster delivery of work product, and less costs; each of which impact referrals, reputation, and client satisfaction. Reuters reports that clients expect their lawyer to lead the charge in leveraging AI for the client’s benefit.[6] Clients will expect law firms to use AI due to the potential reduction in cost and time savings. The law firm that responds to these demands will have a significant advantage over those that do not. Adopting AI will also lead to changes in billing practices, and we will see more firms move to alternative fee arrangements such as a flat fee billing arrangement.[7]
Doug Kim
, a Physics major from Davidson College, began his professional career as a computer programmer and software engineer. His intellectual property career began in 1998 when he combined his business experience with his legal education and was involved with enforcing a client’s patent against multiple infringers. Since then, Doug has created a well-rounded IP practice that provides legal solutions and strategies tailored to each client from multinational corporations to start-ups.
[1] New report on ChatGPT & generative AI in law firms shows opportunities abound even as concerns persist, Thomson Reuters, April 17, 2023.
[2] In all fairness, we should see a reduction in the needs for support staff and junior associates. These roles typically involve administrative, repetitive tasks that AI can now perform with greater efficiency and cost effectiveness.
[3] The iPhone was first released June 29, 2007.
[4] A Seat at the Head of the Table: From Lawyer To CEO, by David Felicissimo, Association of Corporate Counsel, 2017.
[5] See CLE requirements in North Carolina for Lawyers, NC Continuing Legal Education (showing that lawyers in North Carolina must complete one hour of CLE in Technology every two years.) https://www.nccle.org/for-lawyers/requirements/renewing-lawyers/
[6] AI: the new legal powerhouse — why lawyers should befriend the machine to stay ahead by Jeremy Glaser and Sharzaad Borna, Thomson Reuters
[7] I appreciate the natural financial friction where the lawyer will pay for AI just to be able to charge less. However, while beyond the scope of this article, AI will have an impact on the adoption of alternative fee arrangements. I have been providing flat fee arrangements for decades and trust me, there is nothing to fear.
by Kim, Lahey & Killough Law FirmIncrease in Software License Disputes Expected to Continue in 2019
In our practice we are seeing an increase in software license disputes between software vendors and users. It seems that the main reason for the increase in disputes is the change in technology, which has changed the way in which software is created, distributed and used. This problem is aggravated by either current license agreements not being updated to reflect these changes or by vendors making license terms more onerous for users.
Technology is creating a need to modify and update license agreements.
The technological changes that are at the root of this increase in disputes include the rapid increase in cloud computing and virtualization of software. License agreements that were user based, seat based or even enterprise based do not fit well with the cloud/virtualization model. In response, software vendors are seeking to identify the actual number of user or copies by exercising their audit rights which users typically try to resist, thus creating tension between the vendor and the user. When creating, distributing or using software, it is wise to focus on the licensing model being used as well as how it fits into the existing IT system. As more and more software moves to the cloud and license agreements are not updated, we can expect to see license disputes increase.
Vendors are changing their licensing terms.
For example, Java, one of the most widely adopted programming languages (Indeed reported in 2016 that it was the second most sought after skill for programming) had its license changed so that Oracle JDK is free to individuals for use, development, testing, prototyping and demonstrations, but now requires a commercial license to avoid the GPLv2+CE license. The GLPv2 license requires that all the source code be made public, which completely removes any ability to prevent others from using your source – an outcome not very popular with most software vendors seeking to license their software.
We are also seeing license terms being used aggressively where some vendors are seeking to make up for lost revenues caused by the open source model. Software developers, that charge for their time, turn to open source for efficiencies that can increase profits and allow savings to be passed to customers. However, some of the open source licensing is being modified without the user’s knowledge, creating significant legal and financial issues.
For example, some software licenses have clauses along the lines of “[Vendor] expressly reserves the right to modify the Terms of Service at any time in its sole discretion by including such alteration and/or modification in these Terms of Service, along with a notice of the effective date of such modified Terms of Service.” The issue is that the individual in an organization that approves licenses is typically not the user that would encounter the “modified Term of Services.” So terms change without the company’s knowledge. In one case, we saw the license go from free to thousands of dollars per user. The user simply would not have used the software in the first place, had it known of this change and is now in the process of removing the software from its product.
The Recent Supreme Court may increase Software copyright disputes.
In March, the Supreme Court clarified that to bring a copyright infringement case, the copyright holder must have the copyright registration in hand. This changed the rule in many areas of the country that allowed for the copyright holder to simply have an application on file. If software vendors begin to apply for and secure copyrights upon the creation of software (as they should), they will be entitled to attorney fees and statutory damages (recovery up to $150K per infringement without proving actual damages). Under the old rule, where only the application in file was needed, the ability to recover attorney fees and statutory damages we largely lost. Knowing that the recovery of attorney fees and statutory damages are available, vendors may not be likely to use copyright infringement to more aggressively enforce their licensees or even instigate litigation.
What’s next? Prevention!
- Review the policies within your organization as to how software is used and downloaded. For example, can anyone download software and click “I Agree” and bind the company to the licenses?
- Review the existing license agreement and amendment, renegotiate or even cancel as appropriate. We are even seeing software vendors elect to use the laws of other countries to benefit for more advantageous legal structure than those in the US. For example, because Canada can allow for the modification of the license with only notice to the user, some vendors are electing to use Canadian law (localization). In 1984, Louisiana enacted the Software License Enforcement Act (SLEA) which, among other terms, state that a software license agreement can ONLY be enforced if: (a) the user can clearly read a software license notice on the software packaging; (b) the software license notice indicates that by opening the package or using the software the end user accepts the terms of the enclosed license agreement and (c) the notice states that the software may be returned if the end user does not accept the license agreement. Note how this law does not fit cloud-virtualization very well.
- At the software design stage for customer software, understand the open source used, third party software used, third party licenses needed, and the effect of the rest of the IT system already in place. For example, does the custom project legally allow for cloud-virtualization? Does the software architecture need seat licenses, enterprise, cloud, or some other license structure?
- Work with an experienced attorney that understands software, software licensing and the trends in this area.
- Act early, users can typically have a better position in negotiating when the potential issues are identified pre-dispute and can resolve the potential dispute with the vendor. Vendors can better service users when the business and legal relationship is clearly understood, and unauthorized use is avoided.
If you have any questions regarding this article, contact Doug Kim, 864-973-6699, [email protected] or Cherish Benton, [email protected].
Doug Kim, a Physics major from Davidson College, began his professional career as a computer programmer and software engineer. His intellectual property career began in 1998, when he combined his business experience with his legal education and was involved with enforcing a client’s patent against multiple infringers. Since then, Doug has created a well-rounded IP practice that provides legal solutions and strategies tailored to each client from multinational corporations to start-ups. Doug provides his clients with strategies to protect inventions (patents), brands (trademarks), websites, software, apps, music, photos, and websites (copyright, licenses and Internet law), and trade secret (the “secret sauce”).
These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.