Predictions about artificial intelligence often focus on job losses and shrinking demand for lawyers. Filevine CEO and co-founder Ryan Anderson and product manager John Rizner offer a sharply different forecast. Drawing on the Jevons paradox, they argue greater efficiency will make legal services accessible to more people, encourage deeper legal research, and create work once excluded by cost. AI might reduce the effort required for individual tasks while expanding the overall volume and ambition of legal representation.

The shift holds major implications for the access-to-justice gap. Faster drafting, research, and document review would allow lawyers to serve more clients without sacrificing professional judgment. Anderson expects family law, immigration, bankruptcy, criminal defense, and employment litigation to experience some of the earliest growth. Motions, witnesses, and legal theories once abandoned over expense become economically viable, although courts face their own capacity crisis as more disputes and arguments enter the system.

Rizner explains how Filevine’s legal AI platform, Lois, applies machine learning to one of legal research’s oldest problems: traditional citators often return different results. Lois combines citation graphs with semantic analysis to locate opinions discussing related legal doctrines even when no direct citation connects the cases. A panel of models then evaluates potential conflicts and produces a structured memo. The goal is richer legal analysis focused on the precise holding or proposition a lawyer needs, rather than a simple flag attached to an entire opinion.

Accuracy still demands disciplined human review. Filevine organizes citation verification into three levels: confirming the cited case exists, determining whether the case supports the claimed proposition, and checking whether the authority is still good law. The conversation also examines Rizner’s research into how different large language models approach efficient breach of contract. OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic models produced dramatically different recommendations, revealing embedded legal and economic preferences beneath seemingly neutral answers.

The guests also explore how AI changes legal drafting, law firm economics, and the billable hour. Filevine’s acquisition of Pincites, now Lois for Word, reflects Microsoft Word’s continuing role as the shared language of legal documents, redlines, formatting, and negotiations. Efficiency does not automatically eliminate hourly billing. Lawyers might instead use saved time to produce more thoroughly researched arguments, stronger contracts, and work product approaching senior-level depth. Firms still need incentives rewarding efficiency rather than treating faster work as lost revenue.

Looking ahead, Anderson and Rizner predict a proliferation of frontier and open-source models tailored to firms, individual lawyers, and specific client relationships. Legal teams will increasingly pair proprietary knowledge with selected models to produce highly specialized analysis. Yet model choice introduces jurisprudential bias, accuracy risks, and serious training concerns for junior lawyers. AI expands the range of available options, while experienced legal judgment decides which arguments deserve trust, which sources require verification, and which advice should reach the client.

John Rizner Slides Filevine Primary Presentation - 2026

Listen on mobile platforms: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript:

What does legal AI value look like once speed stops serving as the headline metric? In this episode of The Geek in Review, Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer speak with Nikki Shaver, co-founder and CEO of Legal Technology Hub and a member of the inaugural Financial Times Law 50. Shaver argues that law firms need to move beyond time saved toward efficacy: stronger output, stronger client outcomes, and more effective legal advice.

The conversation examines why the billable hour is far from finished yet no longer serves as the sole measure of legal value. Shaver compares hourly timekeeping to a taxi meter: useful for internal visibility, yet insufficient as the price signal for work transformed by AI. Workflow mapping, client discussions, and pricing discipline become central where an AI-enabled process compresses weeks of effort into hours.

Corporate legal departments are adopting AI at a faster pace, bringing new pressure to outside counsel. Some in-house teams see AI as a route to keep more work inside, while others see room for firms to take on work that previously sat outside budget limits. Shaver frames the strategic question around delivering more for clients, especially in practice areas where a firm holds differentiated expertise.

AI has not produced the promised empty calendar. Instead, lawyers report fuller schedules, longer documents, and a growing verification tax. Shaver flags the rise of 40-page forms, bloated redlines, and outputs that look polished yet lack sound reasoning. The episode makes a practical case for concise drafting, human review, and critical reasoning before any AI-generated material reaches a client or counterparty.

Agentic AI raises the stakes. Legal Technology Hub’s AI Agents in Law Map tracks hundreds of solutions, yet governance has not kept pace with new autonomy, connectors, and downstream system access. Shaver urges firms to establish traceability, unique identifiers, risk-based human oversight, enforceable policies, and a clear view of where data travels.

For firms aiming past baseline adoption, Shaver draws a line between routine personal use and strategic transformation. Daily use builds fluency, but competitive advantage grows from proprietary workflows, data foundations, client-facing collaboration spaces, and focused investment in the practices where a firm already excels. Her crystal-ball view is blunt: trusted judgment will become a scarce premium asset, AI-native firms will rise, and traditional firms will launch AI-native subsidiaries of their own.

Listen on mobile platforms: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript:

For law firms, artificial intelligence has often arrived as a choice between speed and control. Stephen Costigan, founder of Atlas AI, argues that choice deserves a rethink. In this episode of The Geek in Review, we speak with Costigan about private legal AI infrastructure, knowledge graphs, and why a firm’s internal work product may become its most valuable long-term asset.

Atlas AI focuses on turning documents, matter history, precedents, clauses, parties, and obligations into a curated legal knowledge graph inside a firm’s own environment. Costigan contrasts this approach with standard vector search and retrieval systems, which find text with similar language but often lack context around clients, matters, entities, and relationships. A knowledge graph offers structure, linking people, documents, clauses, and legal concepts in ways closer to how lawyers understand their work.

The conversation also explores data quality, a subject with enough baggage to fill a records room. Costigan argues firms no longer need year-long cleanup projects before seeing results. Agent-led curation, entity extraction, duplicate resolution, and ontology mapping reduce much of the manual sorting traditionally associated with knowledge management. Human judgment still matters, especially around practice-area vocabularies and lower-confidence results, but the machines get assigned more of the janitorial work.

Security and governance sit at the center of Costigan’s model. Rather than asking firms to trust a vendor’s assurances around privileged data, Atlas AI runs within a firm’s Azure environment, under firm-controlled keys and policies. Costigan frames this as a shift from confidentiality as a contractual promise to confidentiality as an architectural decision. For legal organizations handling sensitive client information, the location of data, embeddings, audit trails, and model interactions matters as much as the interface lawyers see on screen.

Looking ahead, Costigan predicts a divide between firms renting generic AI tools and firms building durable knowledge infrastructure from their own experience. As routine drafting, diligence, and review work compress, firms with structured and reusable internal intelligence may productize expertise, offer new fixed-fee services, and rely less heavily on traditional leverage models. The future question, Costigan suggests, will not center on which AI tool sits on a lawyer’s desktop. The bigger question will ask who owns the knowledge behind the work.

Listen on mobile platforms: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠Substack⁠

[Special Thanks to ⁠⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.]

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com

Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript: