As
a
former
senior
in-house
counsel,
I
knew
that
outside
counsel
could
be
slow
on
the
uptake.
For
years
and
years
we
tried
to
persuade
outside
counsel
that
there
were
benefits,
not
just
to
us,
but
to
them,
in
changing
their
thoughts
about
billing
and
case
staffing.
Waste
of
time,
whistling
in
the
wind,
stubborn
and
unwilling
to
change
their
ways.
Now
all
these
years
later,
it
may
be
AI
that
finally
tells
outside
firms
that
unless
they
get
with
the
program,
their
firms
could
lose
books
of
business
near
and
dear
to
their
bottom
lines.
In
a
recent
report,
in-house
departments
that
were
surveyed
blew
the
doors
off
about
inside
lawyers
being
reluctant
to
adopt
AI.
Not
so.
Two-thirds
are
now
using
AI
or
a
beta
version.
Over
90%
(not
a
typo)
say
that
efficiency
is
the
top
benefit
of
AI.
Just
about
two-thirds
say
that
in-house
use
of
outside
counsel
will
be
reduced.
About
a
quarter
of
in-housers
say
that
they
will
be
pushing
for
changes
in
billing
arrangements.
Now
that
I
have
your
attention,
how
are
outside
firms
going
to
respond
to
this
challenge
to
the
very
existence
of
some
firms?
Most
in-house
counsel
have
pushed
for
years,
if
not
decades,
to
get
the
attention
of
these
firms.
Is
this
report
going
to
be
the
needed
clarion
call?
Once
upon
a
time,
a
particular
ridiculous
and
extremely
irritating
billing
practice
made
in-house
counsel
very
unhappy.
When
fax
machines
(remember
those?)
were
new
in
the
repertoire
of
expenses
charged
by
outside
counsel,
it
was
routine
outside
firm
practice
to
charge
$1
a
page
for
someone
in
the
firm
to
feed
documents
into
the
fax
and
then
retrieve
faxes
being
received.
You
do
the
math.
It
was
only
after
our
general
counsel
had
a
giant
hissy
fit
that
outside
firms
backed
off
from
what
was
profit
for
them.
Some
interesting
issues
arise
from
using
AI
and
how
firms
are
billing
and
will
bill
for
that
time.
If
AI
can
do
the
basic
work
in
a
nanosecond
compared
to
a
junior
lawyer,
how
does
the
firm
bill
for
the
time?
How
to
allocate
between
client
savings
and
the
firm’s
responsibility
for
oversight
and
judgment?
What’s
also
startling
in
the
report
is
that
80%
of
the
in-house
lawyers
are
not
pushing
outside
firms
on
AI.
Why
aren’t
in-house
counsel
demanding
AI
usage
by
outside
firms
where
appropriate
and
necessary?
Please
explain.
Being
a
perfectionist
is
the
bugaboo
of
every
lawyer.
We
all
want
to
be
perfect,
don’t
we?
Write
briefs
that
are
perfect
and
hallucination-free.
Flawlessly
argue
every
motion
in
court
instead
of
waking
up
at
3
a.m.
with
the
argument
you
should
have
made,
could
have
made,
would
have
made,
if
only
you
had
remembered
it
the
day
before.
Resolve
every
case
in
a
timely
and
cost-efficient
manner,
no
matter
even
if
opposing
counsel
has
dump-trucked
reams
of
superfluous
discovery
that
nonetheless
still
had
to
be
responded
to.
This
is
after
assuring
the
client
that
the
case
is
a
“slam
dunk”
for
her.
Does
any
lawyer
have
a
usable
crystal
ball?
Why
do
we
twist
ourselves
into
pretzels
in
an
attempt
to
obtain
the
unobtainable?
Do
you
know
any
lawyer,
at
any
career
stage,
who
is
perfect?
Whose
practice
is
perfect?
Who
never
makes
mistakes?
We
must
continue
to
remind
ourselves
that
it
is
the
practice
of
law,
not
the
perfection
of
law.
E&O
carriers
would
cringe
more
than
they
already
do
if
lawyers
were
held
to
a
standard
of
unattainable
perfection,
even
though
some
malpractice
complaints
allege
it.
It’s
so
hard
for
us
to
let
go
and
relinquish
control.
But
if
you
think
about
it,
lawyers
have
less
control
than
other
professions.
We
put
ourselves
in
the
hands
of
judges
and
juries
who
decide
cases
on
bases
that
may
be
indecipherable
to
us.
Jury
nullification,
deadlocked
juries
with
jurors
unable
to
listen
to
other
viewpoints.
We’ve
all
said
to
clients
that
we
never
know
what
a
judge
or
jury
might
do,
and
that’s
why
so
many
cases
settle.
It’s
the
uncertainty,
the
ambiguity
that
can
make
practicing
law
such
a
crapshoot
and
so
nerve-wracking.
I
would
be
surprised
if
any
lawyer
doesn’t
admit
that
the
hardest
thing
about
practicing
law
is
the
difficulty
in
letting
go,
in
being
comfortable
with
not
knowing.
Much
to
client
dismay,
we
can’t
predict
outcomes,
even
with
AI.
And
when
that
day
comes,
we
will
know
that
the
fix
is
in.
We
need
to
let
go
of
the
quest
for
perfection.
As
lawyers
we
are
bombarded
with
responsibilities
to
both
clients
and
courts.
We
have
ethical
duties.
We
have
a
million
things
to
do.
Salvador
Dali
said,
“Have
no
fear
of
perfection-you
will
never
reach
it.”
I
rest
my
case.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].