okay,
this
used
to
confuse
me
too.
One
of
the
more
interesting
sessions
at
the
Legal
Geek
conference
this
week
in
Chicago
was
a
panel
discussion
featuring
in-house
lawyers
from
Motorola
(Zhaoying
Du)
and
CSC
Generation
(Elizabeth
Brown).
We
often
hear
that
there
is
a
mismatch
between
what
in-house
clients
want
and
what
they
do
and
what
outside
lawyers
are
doing
(as
opposed
to
saying).
Du
and
Brown
offered
an
honest
and
insightful
look
not
only
on
how
AI
is
changing
and
will
change
the
relationship
between
in-house
and
outside
lawyers.
They
also
talked
about
the
struggles
in-house
counsel
are
having
in
the
brave
new
world
of
AI.
The
In-House
Perspective
Du
and
Brown
both
agreed
that
they
want
to
do
as
much
work
in-house
as
possible
and
believe
AI
will
provide
the
opportunity
to
do
more
and
more.
Today,
their
use
of
outside
counsel
is
limited
primarily
to
litigation
and
areas
where
they
have
limited
expertise
or
were
location
specific.
This
might
sound
like
a
boon
to
litigators
even
in
the
age
of
AI,
at
least
for
now.
On
the
flip
side,
both
in-house
counsel
want
their
outside
counsel
to
be
more
proactive
in
letting
in-house
lawyers
know
about
trends
that
could
impact
their
businesses.
They
both
believe
outside
counsel
are
in
unique
positions
to
see
what
is
happening
to
similar
businesses
they
represent.
In-house
counsel,
on
the
other
hand,
sometimes
have
a
myopic
vision
of
single
business
impacts.
AI
provides
significant
opportunities
to
those
outside
firms
who
use
the
tools
to
do
just
this.
In-House
Expectations
Both
Du
and
Brown
told
the
audience
that
they
now
expect
outside
lawyers
to
better
prove
their
value.
But
despite
this,
both
say
they
don’t
often
hear
how
their
outside
firms
are
using
AI
to
get
ahead
of
the
innovation
curve
or
what
kind
of
AI
tools
they
are
using.
Both
seemed
committed
to
asking
more
of
outside
counsel
in
the
future
and
plan
to
set
expectations
for
AI
use
by
their
lawyers.
Brown
put
it
this
way:
we
want
outside
lawyers
to
“tell
us
what
AI
you
are
using,
how
you
scale
it
for
our
benefit
and
how
you
are
balancing
that
use
with
privacy
concerns.”
And
they
want
to
encourage
firms
to
use
AI
more
and
be
more
efficient.
In
short,
outside
lawyers
will
have
to
better
justify
how
much
they
are
getting
paid.
Fee
Structures
Both
counsels
are
open
to
changing
the
fee
structure
away
from
the
billable
hour
to
a
fixed
or
project-based
fee.
And
they
seemed
open
to
the
possibility
that
outside
lawyers
could
enhance
profits
from
those
structures
if
they
better
used
AI.
They
pointed
out
that
these
fee
structures
could
be
to
law
firms’
benefit
since
it
would
enable
them
to
do
the
work
for
less
than
what
they
bid.
But
they
both
wondered
how
well
some
of
their
firms
could
move
to
a
different
fee
structure
and
how
much
they
could
trust
the
estimates
being
offered.
(Of
course,
that’s
true
already
since
some
firms
and
lawyers
are
better
at
budgeting
than
others.)
Both
believed
that
to
use
a
fixed
or
project-based
structure,
it
would
have
to
be
with
a
firm
they
worked
with
before
and
that
they
could
trust.
Over
time
they
have
developed
a
strong
sense
of
how
long
something
will
take
and
what
it
costs.
Both
believe
that
they
can
use
AI
to
enhance
this
sense.
Similarly,
both
complained
bitterly
about
law
firms
that
bill
for
the
creation
of
a
document
as
if
something
similar
had
never
been
done
before.
They
see
this,
they
said,
over
and
over.
They
want
and
will
expect
firms
to
leverage
their
past
efforts
and
data
with
AI
tools
so
that
they
only
pay
for
the
time
spent
tailoring
a
document
to
a
specific
situation
and
client,
not
the
creation
anew.
Outside
client
should
have
a
playbook
for
document
creation
and
then
customize
the
document.
In-House
Struggles
and
Opportunities
On
the
other
side
of
the
equation,
both
recognized
that
in-house
counsel
also
face
AI
challenges.
They
feel
the
in-house
adoption
rate
is
lower
than
it
should
be
and
that
there
continues
to
be
lawyers
who
resist
using
AI
tools.
They
eagerly
want
their
departments
to
use
AI
to
improve
functionality
and
do
different
tasks.
They
recognize
the
need
to
be
cautious
but
see
lots
of
opportunities
to
save
time.
For
example,
AI
chatbots
could
be
used
to
answer
repetitive
inquiries
from
employees
and
then
determine
the
ROI
based
on
hours
saved.
Finally,
these
in-house
counsels
see
tremendous
opportunities
for
agentic
AI
for
“low
risk”
activities
like
responding
to
routine
emails
and
scheduling.
Brown
noted
that
agentic
AI
could
make
a
useful
clone
of
the
in-house
lawyer
for
these
tasks.
What
It
All
Means
Of
course,
this
means
in-house
counsel
will
have
more
time
on
their
hands
to
do
more
tasks
that
they
may
have
previously
sent
to
outside
lawyers.
And
AI
can
provide
useful
answers
in
some
specialty
areas
that
might
have
created
a
few
billable
moments
for
outside
lawyers.
So,
what
does
all
this
mean?
It
means
outside
lawyers
need
to
do
some
hard
thinking
about
what
their
clients
want
and
expect,
particularly
if
they
want
to
stay
competitive.
They
need
to
think
through
what
is
valuable,
how
to
provide
it
and
how
to
prove
it.
They
need
to
focus
on
how
to
gain
the
trust
of
their
clients
perhaps
more
so
than
ever.
There
are
lots
of
firms
out
there
and
AI
and
its
use
may
determine
who
wins.
And
who
loses.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.