by
ChatGPT)
Supposedly,
the
word
of
the
year
in
technology
is
“agentic.”
By
the
end
of
the
year
it’ll
probably
be
“bubble,”
but
for
now
the
world
is
meant
to
tremble
before
the
awesome
promise
of
agentic.
It
takes
AI
to
a
whole
new
level!
It
heralds
the
new
human-free
workforce!
It
keeps
Woody
Harrelson
out
of
the
rain!
As
the
shiny
object
economy
grows
complacent
with
magic
interactive
chatbots,
the
agentic
AI
era
to
transform
those
humdrum
chatbots
into
something…
else.
The
hype
machine
gods
must
feed
and
are
only
satisfied
with
the
blood
of
freshly
squeezed
buzzwords.
What
does
“agentic”
even
mean?
“The
term
‘agent’
is
one
of
the
most
egregious
acts
of
fraud
I’ve
seen
in
my
entire
career
writing
about
this
crap,
and
that
includes
the
metaverse,”
writes
tech
journalist
Ed
Zitron
and,
somehow,
he
might
be
too
forgiving.
The
agentic
talk
means
everything
and
nothing
all
at
once.
That’s
the
power
of
an
empty
signifier!
Heap
whatever
vague
hopes
and
dreams
you
can
into
this
rhetorical
nugget
and
let
it
carry
you
to
a
sale
and
another
round
of
funding.
In
theory,
agentic
AI
represents
the
leap
from
autocomplete-on-steroids
to
autonomous
action
—
taking
an
understanding
of
the
user’s
goals
and
setting
out
on
its
own
to
get
the
job
done.
Imagine
a
cybersecurity
bot
surveying
the
evolving
threat
landscape
and
inventing
its
own
countermeasures
as
new
viruses
emerge
all
while
you’re
still
fumbling
with
two-factor
authentication.
Other
tech
companies
promote
agents
that
monitor
your
calendar
and
autonomously
decide
to
book
your
dinner,
or
buy
flowers,
or
plot
the
grisly
demise
of
your
enemies.
But
since
lawyers
entrusting
this
sort
of
autonomy
to
AI
would
be,
to
use
the
technical
term,
“malpractice,”
agentic
AI
doesn’t
really
sing
to
this
market.
If
you
think
hallucinated
case
citations
are
bad,
wait
until
the
agent
takes
it
upon
itself
to
settle
your
client’s
divorce
for
pennies
on
the
dollar
based
on
Kirshner.
Even
if
you’re
not
in
Kentucky.
So
why
would
anyone
hoping
to
sell
to
lawyers
—
which
presumably
describes
the
folks
on
the
ILTACON
exhibit
floor
—
indulge
in
the
term
“agentic”
at
all?
For
the
most
part,
it’s
because
their
agentic
AI
isn’t
really
agentic
AI.
At
least
not
the
way
anyone
trying
to
fuel
a
half
trillion
dollar
valuation
would
use
the
term.
We
first
encountered
this
a
couple
months
ago
when
we
saw
Thomson
Reuters
preview
its
“agentic”
offerings.
Despite
adopting
the
word-of-the-moment,
the
Thomson
Reuters
product
felt
more
like
a
glorified
automation
product
—
which
is
good!
Feed
it
case
files,
it
does
some
research,
it
brainstorms
some
claims
or
defenses,
does
a
little
more
research,
and
spits
out
a
draft.
That’s
useful
and
can
jumpstart
a
lawyer’s
work,
but
it’s
not
so
much
an
autonomous
agent.
If
one
were
so
inclined,
they
could
enter
“based
on
these
case
files,
come
up
with
claims,
perform
relevant
legal
research,
and
present
me
with
a
first
draft
motion”
into
a
bot
and
(provided
it
had
some
way
of
accessing
valid
legal
research
other
than
its
own
fever
dreams)
get
the
same
result
right
now.
That’s
not
so
much
agentic
as
it’s
a
batch
file.
At
ILTACON,
Lexis
showed
off
a
similar
feature
and
added
a
bit
more
to
the
agentic
soup
by
explaining
that
they
use
different
models
for
different
tasks,
making
the
request
more
complicated
than
simply
asking
ChatGPT
a
multipart
prompt.
Fair,
but
that’s
still
not
an
“agent”
as
much
as
professionally
designed
prompting.
When
I
raised
my
irritation
with
the
whole
agentic
conversation
with
Tiana
Van
Dyk,
Senior
Director
of
Client
Services
at
Epiq,
she
characterized
(at
least
within
the
legal
context)
agentic
as
automation
with
prompts.
“Is
it
that
simple?”
she
mused.
“There’s
more
in
there,
because
if
you
have
all
the
wrong
models
tied
to
all
the
wrong
steps,
you’re
gonna
get
a
bad
outcome.”
From
her
perspective,
the
challenge
in
legal
tech
right
now
is
demystifying
these
technologies
for
lawyers.
“What
we’re
missing
in
the
industry,
is
our
ability
to
translate
the
academia
and
the
complex
nature
of
some
of
these
systems
into
something
that
is
accessible.”
Though
with
agents
the
battle
isn’t
with
the
academics
as
much
as
the
advertising
execs.
They’re
the
ones
pitching
autonomous
decision
makers
to
the
world
and
the
legal
tech
vendors
have
to
come
back
and
tell
the
lawyers,
“ha
ha,
yeah,
no,
our
product
really
doesn’t
do
all
that.”
It’s
frustrating,
because
it
sounds
like
I’m
downplaying
the
significant
talent
and
expertise
that
goes
into
making
these
processes
work
right.
Automation
is
hard!
Making
sure
the
process
gets
it
correct
every
time
takes
a
lot
of
strategic
thinking
and
meticulous
effort.
But
I
keep
reminding
myself
that
it’s
not
my
fault
that
this
sounds
dismissive,
it’s
the
wholly
unnecessary
decision
to
set
the
bar
at
HAL
9000.
That’s
not
to
say
there
aren’t
niches
within
the
legal
workflow
that
could
use
genuine
agentic
AI.
Cybersecurity
is
still
a
legal
industry
concern.
The
billing
process
might
be
ripe
for
something
at
least
closer
to
agentic.
Oddr
doesn’t
lean
on
the
word
agentic
in
their
materials
—
hurray!
—
but
its
end-to-end
revenue
platform
that
automates
the
firm
through
billing,
collections,
payments
and
forecasting
is
much
closer
to
the
level
of
streamlined
automation
through
several
different
systems
than
what
many
companies
would
plaster
the
word
agent
all
over.
Still,
it’s
not
“evolving”
its
approach
to
the
billing
process
unless
it
independently
figures
out
how
to
call
Rocco
and
Vinnie
to
pay
a
visit
to
that
one
delinquent
client.
Legal
tech
vendors
have
a
Scylla
and
Charybdis
problem.
On
one
side,
they’re
tech
companies
who
feel
compelled
to
go
with
the
tech
trend
flow
or
look
like
they’re
not
“cutting
edge”
enough.
On
the
other
side,
they
cater
to
a
legal
profession
that
needs
to
be
coaxed
into
tech
adoption
like
frightened
bunnies,
soothed
by
reassurances
that
“this
won’t
really
change
how
you’ve
done
this
job
for
the
last
hundred
years.”
The
good
news,
is
that
lawyers
can
relax.
Healthy
skepticism
is
always
welcome,
but
don’t
let
the
“agentic”
branding
—
and
all
the
tech
industry
baggage
that
comes
with
it
—
scare
you
off
of
legal
tech
products.
The
providers
who
specialize
in
this
space
didn’t
suddenly
forget
who
they’re
dealing
with.
They
know
that
firms
aren’t
in
the
market
for
a
product
that’s
going
to
start
trying
to
“help”
by
making
legal
decisions
on
its
own.
Like
Old
Man
Jenkins,
the
carnival
caretaker
who
would’ve
gotten
away
with
it
if
it
weren’t
for
you
pesky
kids,
if
you
look
underneath
the
hood
of
that
“agentic”
offering
and
you’ll
find
familiar
prompts
driving
a
familiar,
vetted
automation.
Useful,
maybe
even
transformative
at
the
margins,
but
not
something
making
decisions.
The
real
danger
is
that
buzzwords
like
“agentic”
—
and
the
delirious
bucket
of
magic
beans
promises
that
comes
with
it
—
will
scare
lawyers
into
missing
out
on
useful
tools.
But
it’s
the
nature
of
this
industry
that
we
have
to
constantly
push
back
against
promises
that
thrill
venture
capital
while
terrifying
lawyers.
By
next
year
there
will
be
some
new
empty
signifier.
Symphonic
AI…
turning
multiple
agents
into
ebbing
and
flowing
actors
within
a
unified,
goal-oriented
symphony
of
voices.
Or
some
equally
bullshit
phrase.
That
is,
unless
“bubble”
really
does
take
over
first.
Earlier:
Dispatches
From
The
AI
Bubble:
ILTACON
2025
‘Agentic’
AI
Is
The
Hot
Buzzword…
But
Do
Lawyers
Actually
Want
An
Agent?
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.