With
the
rapid
development
of
Gen
AI
and
AI
tools,
there
is
also
the
ongoing
hand-wringing
over
what
these
tools
may
mean
for
lawyers.
Often,
the
consternation
isn’t
about
how
these
tools
might
change
the
practice
of
law
(where
it
should
be),
but
on
how
much
work
(aka
billable
hours)
AI
might
replace.
The
reality,
of
course,
is,
as
with
most
every
other
disruptive
technology,
the
fears
ignore
that
new
work
will
be
generated
by
the
technology;
work
that
doesn’t
exist
now
or
can’t
be
done.
Rather
than
shrinking
the
workload,
AI
may
dramatically
expand
the
range
and
amount
of
viable
legal
claims.
From
mass
torts
to
class
actions,
AI
and
automation
is
systematically
lowering
barriers
and
increasing
legal
work.
ATMs
The
classic
example
of
the
more
likely
impact
of
technology
on
work
is
ATM
machines.
When
ATMs
first
came
on
the
market,
there
was
a
great
hue
and
cry
that
these
machines
would
replace
banks
and
bank
tellers.
But
instead,
ATMs
made
it
cheaper
to
build
banks
and
actually
increased
the
number
of
bank
employees.
The
same
was
true
for
email
and
the
internet,
by
the
way.
AI
and
Litigation
Just
last
week,
I
wrote
about
how
technology
is
propelling
an
increase
in
mass
tort
litigation
and
the
need
for
more
lawyers
on
the
defense
side.
The
gist
of
my
article
was
that
technology
enhances
the
ability
to
ferret
out
and
assert
claims
that
might
otherwise
have
gone
unnoticed,
thanks
to
its
speed
and
scale.
This
spring,
I
also
wrote
about
a
presentation
by
Zach
Abramowitz
in
which
he
postulated
that
technology
and
automation
were
enabling
plaintiffs
lawyers
to
bring
more
cases,
resulting
in
more,
not
less
work
across
the
board.
It’s
in
part
an
example
of
Jevons
Principle:
as
technology
reduces
the
cost
of
a
service,
demand
for
that
service
increases.
Lots
of
people
have
legal
issues
that
go
unresolved
because
the
cost
of
hiring
a
lawyer
exceeds
the
traditional
value
of
obtaining
a
solution.
Bring
down
the
cost
and
many
of
those
claims
will
be
brought.
Surveys
of
in-house
counsel
echo
this
belief:
that
technology
will
lead
to
more,
not
less,
legal
work,
as
I
previously
reported.
Class
Actions
and
AI
And
just
last
week,
I
came
across
yet
another
set
of
technological
tools
that
will
similarly
impact
class
actions.
The
tools
are
being
offered
by
two
companies,
Darrow
and
Rain,
and
promise
to
assist
lawyers
in
identifying
potential
class
actions.
Class
actions
typically
require
that
the
common
issues
of
the
members
of
a
potential
class
predominate
so
that
litigating
them
in
one
proceeding
makes
sense.
So
if
you
are
looking
to
find
a
class,
you
previously
had
to
do
a
lot
of
research.
You
had
to
identify
a
particular
issue
—
say,
a
medical
device
that
caused
harm
to
someone.
Then
you
had
to
painstakingly
research
how
many
others
had
used
the
device
and
suffered
similar
injuries.
And
be
ready
to
deal
with
a
whole
host
of
potential
non-common
issues.
It
was
hard
work
and
time
consuming.
And
for
claims
that
might
not
generate
the
greatest
liability,
the
work
required
was
often
simply
not
worth
the
potential
return.
Layered
on
top
of
this
was
the
fact
that
to
succeed,
speed
was
important.
While
it’s
not
necessarily
always
true
that
“first
to
file”
class
action
lawyers
and
plaintiffs
achieve
the
greatest
success,
it
certainly
doesn’t
hurt.
In
many
ways,
it’s
like
the
gold
rush
scenario
of
years
past:
the
first
one
to
strike
gold
and
file
the
claim
often
has
a
real
advantage.
The
result:
it’s
quite
possible
that
many
potential
class
actions
never
get
discovered
because
the
time
and
energy
required
to
find
them
is
too
great.
This
was
especially
true
for
claims
that
didn’t
get
the
same
publicity
or
notoriety
as
the
high-value
headline
cases.
Moreover,
the
most
lucrative
class
actions
often
would
fall
into
the
hands
of
those
well-heeled
plaintiffs
firms
that
have
the
resources
to
find
and
manage
the
cases.
Tools
like
those
of
Darrow
and
Rain
open
up
the
market
for
other
firms,
increasing
competition,
which
is
not
a
bad
thing.
The
New
Tools
These
tools
scrape
the
internet
for
consumer
complaints,
social
media
posts,
and
government
data
bases
looking
for
areas
where
there
might
be
sufficient
common
interests
and
issues
to
support
class
claims,
particularly
in
the
areas
of
privacy,
price
fixing,
labor,
product
labelling,
and
securities
fraud,
according
to
an
article
in
Law.com
by
Amanda
Bronstad.
Other
areas
where
these
tools
can
be
useful
are
in
the
pharmaceutical
and
environmental
field.
The
Darrow
and
Rain
tools
analyze
mounds
of
data
in
various
fields
and
then
compare
them
in
ways
that
suggest
both
an
injury
and
potential
liability.
By
looking
for
patterns,
the
tools
can
then
identify
situations
that
have
common
issues.
For
example,
it
could
show
a
potential
correlation
between
cancer
rates,
uses
of
chemicals
or
certain
drugs,
and
social
media
commentary.
These
correlations
could
prompt
a
resourceful
plaintiffs
lawyer
to
launch
a
deeper
investigation
into
situations
they
might
have
otherwise
overlooked.
What
once
took
weeks
or
even
months,
now
takes
minutes.
Just
as
those
tools
that
enable
lawyers
to
generate
and
manage
individual
claims
more
efficiently
have
led
to
more
claims
being
brought,
the
same
phenomenon
may
happen
with
class
actions.
The
Defense
Side
Tools
like
this
are
valuable
not
only
to
plaintiffs
lawyers
but
also
to
in-house
counsel
and
enterprising
outside
litigation
attorneys.
If
in-house
lawyers
can
spot
patterns
that
might
trigger
future
class
actions,
they
can
take
steps
to
mitigate
harm,
build
defenses
early,
and
either
nip
the
cases
in
the
bud
or
be
better
prepared
to
defend
them.
Outside
counsel
might
be
better
positioned
to
spot
trends
across
lines
of
businesses
and
flag
the
next
potential
class
action,
advising
their
clients
in
advance
(and
of
course
having
a
leg
up
to
get
the
business
if
it
turns
into
a
case).
The
Future
Several
years
ago,
there
was
a
famous
commercial
which
showed
a
group
of
startup
founders
watching
the
internet
for
the
number
of
orders
of
their
product
being
placed
upon
launch.
At
first,
they
were
elated
as
the
number
of
orders
surged
within
minutes.
That
elation
quickly
turned
to
panic
as
they
watched
demand
skyrocket
beyond
their
capacity
to
keep
up.
The
same
may
be
true
for
litigators.
We’re
going
to
see
more
tools
that
enhance
the
opportunity
for
claims
and
cases
to
be
brought
that
couldn’t
be
brought
before.
For
litigators,
the
question
may
not
be
whether
AI
will
reduce
work.
The
question
may
be
how
we
are
going
to
get
all
the
work
done.
As
the
former
T.
Rowe
Price
CEO
Brian
Rogers
once
said,
“Statistically
speaking,
the
world
doesn’t
end
that
often.”
So
it
goes
for
litigators.
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.