William Mauke

This is an excellent example of proactive IP protection in a new world of AI 'sampling' aka deep fakes.

1

1 Comment

AI TCO: WHAT DO YOU MEASURE? Kicking off Legalweek, Sandra Metallo-Barragan of Proskauer Rose LLP, Amy Sellars - CEDS of Gunster, An Trotter of Hearst, Clinton Sanko of Baker Donelson, moderated by Jon Lavinder of Epiq: Total Cost of Ownership has evolved from a static cost model to a dynamic value framework. “It’s about the people”, says Amy. “You can’t just set it and forget it, says An. You need dedicated resource and process. Changing how people think about their work, training, accelerating adoption, reducing error and risk are all the big challenges. #legaltech Everlaw

34

2 Comments

California’s new SB 37 dramatically reshapes attorney advertising rules—expanding the definition of “advertisement,” mandating new disclosures, and raising the stakes with six-figure penalties for noncompliance. In this Modern Lawyer article, Shawn Shaffie and Jabari J. Brown break down what the shift from “soliciting” to “encouraging” means, the new mandatory disclosure requirements, and how the 9-day withdrawal window works under California SB 37 (effective January 1, 2026). From LinkedIn posts to text campaigns, “casual” marketing is over. Read the full Modern Lawyer article 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gKx-XFpr #LegalEthics #AttorneyAdvertising #LawPracticeManagement #LegalCompliance #ModernLawyer #BHBA #FutureOfLaw

29

2 Comments

I don’t think we can ask law firms for value-based pricing and a share of their AI savings at the same time. The GC whinge that the billable hour prices work on input costs rather than client value is well-trodden and one I’ve made myself in the past. Now that AI is starting to cut those input costs, plenty of us want the bills to fall with them. We saw that nearly four in five in-house lawyers in Juro’s State of In-House survey this year said firms using AI to work faster should charge less. The Financial Times reported earlier this month that Citi, Goldman and Morgan Stanley are telling their panel firms the same thing. That’s still an input cost argument though. If pricing should reflect value, a firm whose advice brings equal value in a fraction of the time should be entitled to keep the extra margin. You can’t have your cake and eat it. And if we do want to argue about input costs (and I don’t think we do if we really believe in value), we have to look at all of them. Not every cost is going down. Alexandra Smyth, GC for RELX Corporate, made the point in an interview with Corporate Counsel this week that lots of firms are now paying for AI tooling they never needed before. I haven’t solved this. Every value-based model I’ve thought through ends up as some form of fixed fee. Fixed fees are good at sharing downside risk with clients: firms absorb the cost of overruns. But they’re terrible at sharing upside when the advice turns out to be more valuable than anyone expected. A better value-based model would give firms a reason to contribute to upside. I’m also not sure how that works on corporate transactions. Outside counsel acting for a target have little influence on commercial terms agreed in principle up front, and the only real price movement after they’re involved is chipping on the back of diligence. Maybe it fits disputes or regulatory work better, where the outcome is easier to quantify. Have you ever agreed a pricing model with a firm that shares upside as well as downside?

23

6 Comments