Share with your friends!

Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis, emphasizes that the era of AI in law is already upon us, fundamentally transforming the legal landscape.

Introduction to LexisNexis and Its Evolution

LexisNexis has long been a cornerstone of the legal profession, serving as a vital resource for lawyers seeking case law, legal research, and necessary precedents. For many, including those who attended law school in the early 2000s, LexisNexis was synonymous with legal research. It provided the infrastructure that lawyers relied on daily, much like email or word processing software.

However, as we approach 2025, the integration of artificial intelligence into enterprise companies with vast databases, including LexisNexis, is becoming increasingly prominent. Fitzpatrick’s first word when describing LexisNexis was not “law” or “data,” but “AI.” This shift highlights the company’s ambition to develop its AI tool, Protégé, which aims to assist lawyers not just in research but also in drafting legal documents that support their arguments in court.

The Promise and Challenges of AI in Legal Practice

The introduction of AI into the legal field is not without its complications. Recent reports have surfaced about lawyers facing sanctions for relying on AI tools that generate fictitious case law. In some instances, judges have had to retract court rulings due to the use of AI-generated citations that did not exist. Fitzpatrick warns that it may only be a matter of time before an attorney loses their license due to the irresponsible use of AI.

In response to these challenges, LexisNexis is positioning Protégé as a solution focused on accuracy. Fitzpatrick assures that everything produced by Protégé will be grounded in real law, making it more reliable than general-purpose AI tools. He elaborates on how LexisNexis has built its AI tools and teams, noting that the company has hired more lawyers to review AI-generated work than he initially anticipated.

Implications for the Legal Profession

As AI tools like Protégé become more integrated into legal practice, significant questions arise about the future of the profession. If AI can handle the research and writing tasks typically assigned to junior associates, how will these associates learn the craft? The traditional apprenticeship model, where junior lawyers gain experience through hands-on work, may be at risk. Fitzpatrick acknowledges this concern, emphasizing the need for a pipeline of skilled lawyers to ensure the profession’s future.

Moreover, as AI-generated legal writing is submitted to judges who may also be using AI tools to review it, there is a growing concern about the potential for over-automation within the judicial system. These questions are pressing and demand immediate attention from legal professionals and educators alike.

Judicial Use of Technology and Originalism

Fitzpatrick’s insights extend beyond the role of AI in legal practice to the implications for the judicial system itself. He discusses the increasing use of technology by judges, particularly conservative judges, who often adhere to a judicial philosophy known as originalism. This theory posits that laws should be interpreted based on their original meaning at the time of enactment.

At The Verge, stories have emerged about judges employing automated linguistic systems to discern the original intent behind various statutes. Fitzpatrick notes that AI is accelerating this trend, especially in a politically charged environment where interpretations of the Constitution are frequently contested.

Demonstrating Protégé’s Capabilities

During the conversation, Fitzpatrick demonstrated Protégé’s capabilities by conducting legal research on contentious topics, such as birthright citizenship, which have recently come under scrutiny in the political arena. This demonstration highlighted the potential for AI to transition from providing basic research tools to offering substantive legal reasoning, raising important questions about the implications for the legal field.

The Philosophical Challenges of AI in Law

Fitzpatrick and the interviewer engaged in a philosophical discussion about the nature of the legal system and the deterministic versus non-deterministic aspects of both law and AI. The legal system is often perceived as deterministic, where inputs lead to predictable outputs. However, the reality is much more complex, influenced by human emotions, biases, and external factors.

Fitzpatrick acknowledges that while AI can enhance legal processes, it cannot replace the nuanced thinking that lawyers bring to their work. He emphasizes that AI should be seen as a tool that augments a lawyer’s capabilities rather than a replacement. For instance, when preparing for a deposition, a lawyer can use Protégé to generate a list of questions based on the specifics of a case, streamlining the process while still requiring the lawyer’s critical thinking to refine the output.

The Impact on Legal Apprenticeship

However, this raises another significant concern: the traditional apprenticeship model in law firms may be disrupted. Historically, junior associates learned the intricacies of legal practice by engaging in foundational tasks, such as drafting documents and conducting research. With AI handling these responsibilities, there is a risk that new lawyers may miss out on essential learning experiences that shape their skills and understanding of the law.

Fitzpatrick recognizes this challenge and suggests that firms will need to adapt to ensure that junior lawyers still receive the mentorship and experience necessary to develop their expertise. He believes that while AI can increase efficiency, it is crucial to maintain a balance that allows for the continued growth of legal professionals.

Addressing Concerns About AI Reliability

One of the most pressing issues surrounding AI in the legal field is the reliability of the information it generates. Fitzpatrick points out that many consumer-grade AI models are not equipped to meet the rigorous standards required in legal settings. Unlike traditional legal research, where authoritative content is paramount, AI-generated outputs can often be probabilistic and unreliable.

LexisNexis aims to address these concerns by providing a courtroom-grade solution backed by a vast database of 160 billion documents and records. The company’s citator agent ensures that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date, allowing attorneys to trust the AI-generated content. This level of reliability is essential in a field where the stakes are high, and errors can have serious consequences.

Privacy and Transparency in Legal AI

Privacy is another critical concern when it comes to AI in law. The attorney-client relationship is built on trust and confidentiality, and any AI tool used in legal practice must adhere to strict privacy standards. Fitzpatrick emphasizes that LexisNexis has designed its AI tools to prioritize client privacy and security, ensuring that sensitive information remains protected.

Transparency is also vital in the legal field. Fitzpatrick explains that LexisNexis opens up the “black box” of AI, allowing attorneys to understand the logic behind the system’s outputs. This transparency enables lawyers to make informed decisions and adjust the AI’s recommendations as needed, ensuring that the final legal documents reflect their expertise and judgment.

Conclusion

The integration of AI into the legal profession is both exciting and fraught with challenges. As LexisNexis continues to develop tools like Protégé, the legal landscape will undoubtedly evolve. While AI has the potential to enhance efficiency and accuracy, it also raises critical questions about the future of legal education, the role of junior associates, and the reliability of AI-generated content.

As the legal industry grapples with these changes, it is essential for stakeholders to engage in thoughtful discussions about the implications of AI on the practice of law. The future of the legal profession may depend on finding a balance between leveraging technology and preserving the essential human elements that underpin the justice system.

Source: Original report