In the latest episode of AI and the Future of Law, hosts @BridgetMaryMc and Jennifer Leonard talk about @Kirkland_Ellis’ reported $500 million investment in building its own proprietary AI platform and why law firms need AI strategies that reflect their own strengths rather than copying another firm’s playbook. Together, they examine growing concerns among junior associates about how AI is changing early-career legal work, including questions about training, meaning, skill development, and more. Check out the full episode here: #AIandtheFutureofLaw# #AI# #LegalTech#

Missed it live? Learn more about our new Resolution Simulator, coming soon! Diana Didia, EVP and chief technology & innovation officer at the AAA, hosted a special edition of @CCBJournal's Tech Tuesday webinar showcasing our latest AI tool in action. Discover how the AAA’s new Resolution Simulator helps parties understand how an arbitrator might analyze claims, counterclaims, and legal arguments—supporting more informed decision-making and case preparation. Watch the full webinar here: #AAAICDR# #CCBJTechTuesday# #LegalInnovation# #DisputeResolution# #LegalTechnology#

Do you have to use the AI Arbitrator? The short answer: No! Participation in AI Arbitration is completely voluntary — and both parties must agree to use the AI Arbitrator. The AI Arbitrator is simply an option to give parties a faster, streamlined alternative to fast, fair, and cost-effective outcomes. Learn more about the AI Arbitrator here: #AAA# #AIArbitrator# #Arbitration# #LegalTech#

"Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure: A Case Study on Midnight City" I just made a LinkedIn post about a document that really caught my interest. Over the past few days I've been working with Luciano Oliva Bianco on one of the least discussed and most urgent problems in agentic commerce: what happens legally when two AI agents negotiate and close a transaction with no human in the loop? In "Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure: A Case Study on Midnight City," we explore how the Legal Context Protocol (LCP) can give these transactions something they don't have today: a verifiable cryptographic record of the agreed terms, bound to the payment, and auditable afterward by either party, a court, or a regulator. The piece covers three areas: The legal diagnosis: which existing doctrines (ratification, consumer protection, liability cascades) are already poorly suited to a world of agents acting at machine scale. A framework of our own, the "Trust in Depth Framework," proposing layers of human identity, entity attestation, agreement integrity, and agent authorization. A concrete technical roadmap for implementing this on Midnight, leveraging its privacy architecture (selective disclosure, on chain settlement). One thing that mattered to me in closing the analysis: not everything cuts one way. We added a final section dedicated to the real limits and risks of the approach, including that "provable" is not the same as "enforceable," that standard adoption is never guaranteed, and that jurisdiction by jurisdiction regulatory uncertainty is real. A technical legal analysis is only useful if it's also willing to say where it can fail. If you work in compliance, Web3, or agentic commerce, I'd love to hear your take. #AgenticCommerce# #Web3# #LegalTech# #Midnight# #Compliance#

Legal services is a trillion dollar market every year, but software spend into legal tech is only about $40 billion of it. That's 4% software, 96% service. Every other knowledge industry we've digitized has flipped that ratio. Legal hasn't, yet. I joined the @theallinpod on stage at @RaiseSummit in Paris last week to talk about why that's about to change, and why @WeAreLegora isn't here to replace lawyers. Our job is to help them move from a pre-AI world to a post-AI one. The job doesn't disappear. The tasks change. And this market is about to get a lot bigger, not smaller. Thanks to RAISE Summit for hosting us in Paris, and to the All-In crew for having me on stage. Full conversation: