The
legal
tech
world
is
gushing
over Clio’s
announcement last
week
as
if
the
AI
landscape
just
changed
forever.
Maybe.
But
anytime
people
gush,
I
get a
little
skeptical.
I
thought
about
this
in
light
of
the Thomson
Reuters announcement
this
week
of
a a
new
partnership
with DeepJudge to
marry
AI
tools
over
both
internal
firm
data
and
external
data.
As
I previously
discussed, Clio offered
the
blockbuster
announcement
that its
AI
tools
would
now
work
not
only
on
the
internal
data
of
a
firm
but
also
on
external
data
like
cases
and
statutes. Clio’s
approach
essentially
lets
customers
use
one
vendor
for
its
AI
needs
since
that
vendor
can
supply
the
tools
for
use
with
internal
and
external
data.
This
all
under
one
roof
one
stop
concept
has
everyone
gushing
as
if
the
world
has
completely
changed
and
firms
will
flock
to
Clio.
Indeed,
it
sounds
simpler
than having
to
vet
and
select
several
vendors.
Or
cast
your
fate
with
vendors
with
partnerships
that
could
come undone. Or
face
the decision-making paralysis
when
you
have
two
vendors
having
to
decide
anything,
potentially
impairing
creativity
and
nimbleness.
But
I
always
get
suspicious
when
everyone
seems
to
conclude
that
a
tech
development
has
changed
the
world right
now
and
forever
more. As Roy
Amara famously
said: “We
tend
to
overestimate
the
effect
of
a
technology
in
the
short
run
and
underestimate
the
effect
in
the
long
run.” And
right
now,
the
Clio announcement is
less
than
a
week
old.
It
might
be
a
tad
bit
early
to
declare
game
over.
The
TR Announcement
According
to
the TR press
release, DeepJudge,
founded
by
former
Google
AI
researchers,
enables
professionals
to use
AI
tools
and
prompts across
internal
knowledge bases. Again,
according
to
the press
release,
“by
integrating DeepJudge’s AI
knowledge
platform
with
CoCounsel
Legal,
Thomson
Reuters
will
give
legal
teams
a
360-degree
view
that
unifies
internal
firm
know-how
and
exclusive
Thomson Reuters
content…
This
foundation enables
AI
agents
to
plan
and
execute
multi-step
legal
tasks,
helping
professionals
automate
components
of
end-to-end
workflows
with
the
governance
they
require.”
This
is
yet
another
attempt
at
enabling lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
use
AI
not
only
on
external
data
like
cases
and
statutes,
but also on internal data
to
get
the
full use.
Says
Paulina Grnarova,
CEO
and
co-founder of DeepJudge,
“What
sets
firms
apart
is
how
they
leverage
their
unique
assets—their
expertise and
the
know-how
and
work
product
derived
from
it.”
Sound familiar?
The
Hype May
Be
a
Bit Premature
What Grnarova says
is
true, which
is
why
so
many
providers
are
looking
for
a
way
to
do just
this. For
example,
earlier this
year, Harvey and LexisNexis announced
a
partnership
to
try
to
do something
similar: they’re
using
this
partnership arrangement
to
apply
the
LexisNexis substantial AI
tools
to
external
data and Harvey
customers’
internal
data
as
well.
The
TR-DeepJudge
relationship
attempts a
similar integration.
Those
today
gushing
over
what
Clio
has
done would say what vendors TR
and
LexisNexis
have
done is
now sophomoric. It
reminds me
of
all
those
who
keep
declaring
the
billable
hour
dead,
soon
to
be
replaced
by
alternative
billing
models.
Maybe
someday
it
will
be. But
we’ve
written
that
obituary
more
than
once.
So, I wonder whether
it might
be
a
little
quick
to
conclude
that what
TR
and
LN
are
doing is really
not all
that
significant.
If
your
needs
can
be
met
by
using
tools
offered through the
partnership model from by
LN and
now
TR, there’s not
necessarily
a
need
to
change
horses
just
because
the
world
believes
Clio
has
left
everyone
else
in
the
dust. Especially
a
little over
a
week
after
the announcement. Just
as
there’s
no
reason
to
reflexively leave
the
Clio
stable
because TR has entered into this
partnership.
The
key
is
not
what
all
the
pundits
of
the
world
are
saying, it’s whether
your
needs
are
being
met
in
the
best
way
possible.
Power
Corrupts,
Absolute
Power
Corrupts
Absolutely
There’s
another
issue
at
play
here
too. Like the
tech
curmudgeon, Cory
Doctorow, I’m
always
suspicious
when
one
competitor
gets
too
much
market
power and
when
it
ties
customers
to
it
because it’s too difficult
to
go
someplace
else.
Clio
may
be
great today, but it
got
there because
it was driven
to
be
great
by competitive forces.
If too
many customers sign
up
with
Clio, there
is
a
risk that when
the
competitive
edge is
gone, decreased
services, increased
prices,
and
more onerous service terms will surface.
So, it’s
good
to
have
competition, and
as
a
customer,
you
need
to
consider
the
impact
if
Clio
gets
too
much
market
power
and
the
risk
it
could
pose
if
you
sign
up.
Certainly, there
are
advantages to
using
one
vendor
for
everything. But once
you
sign up
with
the
one
vendor,
the
ability
to
leave
that
vendor
should
services decline or prices increase is
constrained. As
I wrote
last
week, it would
require
you
to
replace
that
one vendor with
several
others
to
get
the
same
level
of service.
A headache
that
might
tempt
you
to
stay
with
the
one
when you
would otherwise be nimbler
and
more
flexible.
And
in
a
time
of
change
where
new
AI developments are
announced
every
day,
being
nimble
may
be
even
more
important
than
ever for
customers.
The ability to
pick
and
choose vendors
for
tasks
enables
you
to
pick
the
best
one for
the
tasks
and
then
flock
to
another
one if
and
when a
new
tool
is
offered.
One
More Thing
There’s
another
issue
when
pundits
rush
to
judgment
about
a
new
product
or
innovation before
it’s actually
tested out
in
the
field
and
the hype
is
proven.
It’s
a
sad fact too many
vendors
promote
products
that
don’t
do
everything
that’s
promised
or
products
that
don’t
yet
exist.
Talk
to
any
law
firm
IT
department
and
you
will
find
that
this
happens
quite
often.
They
pay
for
X
but
never
get
X. So it’s
good
to
be
cautious
for
a
bit
before
crowning
Clio
the
sweepstakes
winner.
I
was
talking
to Debbie
Foster,
CEO
of Affinity Consulting,
which
frequently advises law
firms
on
technology
and
its
use,
recently.
She told
me, “It’s really easy to
get
up
on
stage
and
show
a
lot
of
cool
things
a
set
of
products
can
do. It’s another
thing
to
walk
into
a
conference
room
full
of
lawyers and
get
asked
hard
questions
about
the tools
and
what
they
can
and cannot do.” That
proof
is
in
the
pudding:
concluding a
product
is
revolutionary
before
it’s
put
to
the real-world testing is
premature.
Write
Drunk
but
Edit
Sober
Don’t
get
me
wrong.
The
Clio
announcements
are
significant
and
should
be
applauded.
They
just
need
to
be viewed
through
a sobriety lens.
Just
because everyone jumps
on
the
team
Clio
bus
doesn’t
mean it’s right
for you.
In
fact,
I heard
several
lawyers
at
Clio
express
some reluctance to
sign
on
to
an all-powerful Clio.
The old
adage: write
drunk
but
edit
sober
applies
here. Too
many
of
those writing
about
Clio right
now are a
little
drunk
with
the
Clio
booze right
now.
They
need
to
sober
up.
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.