Every year brings a new legal-technology miracle. In 2026, the most aggressively promoted one may be “AI for discovery.” If you have attended even a single conference lately, you have heard the pitch. AI will slash review costs. AI will eliminate drudgery. AI will—apparently any day now—fetch your coffee. That last claim remains unproven.

What tends to get lost in the enthusiasm surrounding AI for discovery is a basic but critical distinction: not all AI is the same. The market often groups two very different technologies under a single oversized umbrella labeled AI, and the difference between them matters enormously in discovery. Definitions are in order: Technology-assisted review (TAR) is the old, reliable workhorse. It is extractive. It finds what is already there based on mathematical patterns. As an article in the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology demonstrates, it has been in use for more than a decade, is well understood, and has enjoyed broad judicial acceptance.

TAR has earned respect from courts and practitioners who value measurable performance metrics, transparent workflows, and repeatable validation. The Sedona Conference TAR Primer remains the foundational explanation of why TAR works, how it can be audited, and how precision and recall can be evaluated.

Generative AI—large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini—is the new, charismatic intern. It is creative. It quickly generates new text based on probability. It is dazzling at first encounter, articulate, fast, and often helpful. It is also prone to making things up when under pressure.

Generative AI lacks TAR’s long judicial track record in discovery workflows. Chatbots are trained to produce plausible text, not to classify documents according to legal standards. They do not inherently understand responsiveness, confidentiality, privilege, or legal intent. Independent evaluations, including the Stanford HAI Index, consistently warn that while generative models are powerful, they remain unpredictable in risk-sensitive contexts.

MORE at LLRX.com

Let’s stop blaming the hallucinations and focus on the real problem:

Lawyers who don’t do their job because they are too busy, too lazy, or too incompetent.

The lawyer who cites a hallucinated AI case and the lawyer who cites a real case without reading it have committed the same ethical failure. Today, it’s usually one of them who gets disciplined.

AI didn’t invent the fake citation. It just automated it.

Long before ChatGPT, lawyers were citing cases they’d never actually read. I know, because as a law clerk to a U.S. District Court judge, I read the cases they didn’t. The citations were real enough — the cases existed — but they had nothing to do with the argument being made. Every time I found one, I discounted everything else in the brief.

This wasn’t evenly distributed. Large firms, with their layers of associates and research infrastructure, rarely had this problem. The less institutional support a lawyer had, the more likely I was to find phantom relevance in their citations. That’s not an indictment of any particular lawyers — it’s an indictment of a profession that has always tolerated sloppy research as long as no one checked.

AI didn’t create a malpractice problem. It just made the existing one impossible to ignore — because now the cases don’t even exist, which is harder to explain away than citing a real case you obviously never read.

The standard hasn’t changed: if you cite it, you’d better have read it and understood it. The only thing that’s changed is that the shortcuts are getting caught.

The hype machine is working overtime on Agentic AI. Don’t fall for it.

I’ll be keeping away from agentic AI for many reasons. It’s just a bad idea, given the current state of the technology. 

Prompt injection worries me the most. Bad actors can take control of your agent in surprisingly easy ways. 

This security risk is the final straw, coming on the heels of the persistent issues Jennifer Ellis has so aptly highlighted:

 * The Hallucination Habit: They remain confidently incorrect far too often.

 * The “Black Box” Problem: Serious questions remain regarding where client data resides, what is retained, and whether the output can be audited with any degree of legal rigor.

All red flags, but the risk of prompt injection makes agentic AI a no-go for the foreseeable future.

Much more on agentic AI later.

The promise has become a mantra: AI will free lawyers from drudgery so they can focus on higher-value work. Thomas Martin, writing for the Thomson Reuters Institute, points to research from UC-Berkeley that complicates that story considerably. The study tracked what actually happens when knowledge workers adopt generative AI. They don’t work less. They work more — faster, broader, longer — often without realizing it.

For a profession already deep in a burnout crisis, Martin argues, this should be a wake-up call.

I can confirm the finding from the inside. I use generative AI extensively — Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT — across research, drafting, and analysis. On routine tasks, yes, AI saves time. But on the projects that matter most, I consistently invest more time, not less. The reason is simple: AI has raised my ambition. When a power tool lets you chase a higher quality ceiling, you chase it. The scope of what feels achievable expands, and you expand with it.

The additional time is worth it. The output is genuinely better — more thorough, more polished, more carefully reasoned. But that’s precisely the dynamic the Berkeley researchers identified. The efficiency gains don’t translate into free hours. They get reinvested immediately, almost invisibly, into more demanding work.

This has implications the legal profession hasn’t seriously grappled with. If AI doesn’t reduce workload but intensifies it, then the firms and institutions selling AI adoption as a path to better work-life balance are telling an incomplete story. The real question — the one Martin rightly flags — is whether we’ll make deliberate choices about how AI reshapes legal work, or simply let the tools quietly raise the bar until the new pace feels normal.

Over the past several years, platforms such as Substack have become increasingly attractive to writers seeking to establish themselves as an independent voice. The appeal is obvious. They are easy to use and can turn a writer into a publisher overnight. No web developer is required. Payment systems are integrated, and distribution is built in.

This trend has accelerated as prominent writers have left legacy publishers including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, CBS News, CNN, and NPR in search of stability or independence. Substack markets itself as a refuge for writers who prefer autonomy to corporate hierarchy.

There are good reasons to use Substack and similar businesses, but there are also risks. These platforms are not inherently malign, but they are fragile. Substack is currently the trendy platform, but the key ideas apply to many other platforms, many of which are analyzed in an article entitled Avoiding the Platform Trap: Alternatives to Substack.

There is a seductive simplicity to the modern newsletter platform. It promises to turn a writer into a publisher overnight, without the technical overhead. It is a brilliant bargain, provided one doesn’t look too closely at who owns the title to the land.

Much more on this topic in this LLRX article: “Don’t Build Your House on Rented Land: Why Writers Should Avoid Platform Dependency and How They Can Do So.“

Message for My Liberal Friends:

Fact-checking? Good.
Name-calling? Strategic malpractice.

The Facebook post graphic reproduced below illustrates both name-calling and effective fact-checking. If your goal is to change minds, contempt is self-sabotage.

Calling people “stupid” because they disagree with you may feel satisfying. It may earn applause from your side. But it will not persuade a single person who matters.

It will harden them.

Contempt Backfires

Arthur Brooks put it plainly in The Atlantic: Contempt — not disagreement — is what poisons civic life. Treating opponents with disdain doesn’t weaken them. It strengthens their identity and their resolve.
People rarely abandon beliefs because someone mocked them. They defend themselves.

And often, they escalate.

Resentment Is Political Fuel

Many Trump supporters describe feeling culturally disrespected. Jonathan Haidt warned in The New York Times that dismissing people as ignorant or immoral deepens alienation rather than persuasion.

If someone already suspects that “liberals look down on people like me,” calling them stupid doesn’t weaken that belief.

It confirms it.

And resentment is a powerful motivator.

Even Politicians Learn This the Hard Way

When Hillary Clinton used the phrase “basket of deplorables,” it became a rallying cry for her opponents. President Obama later acknowledged that the remark was politically damaging.

Insults mobilize. They do not persuade.

Elections Are Margin Games

You don’t need to persuade everyone. You need to persuade a few.

The loudest voices online are rarely the swing votes. The people who matter most are often quieter — reachable but not yet locked in.

Public shaming is designed for applause.
Persuasion is designed for outcomes.

Those are different audiences.

What Works Better

If you genuinely want to make a difference:

  • Share a calm, well-sourced fact check.
  • Send it privately.
  • Choose someone you believe is persuadable.
  • Lead with respect instead of ridicule.

You don’t need fireworks.
You need one honest conversation that lowers the temperature.

Flip a few — just a few — and the math changes.

Fact-checking is constructive.
Humiliation is counterproductive.

Respect isn’t weakness. It’s strategy.

Found on Facebook:

Screenshot

Trump is backing down—or appears to be. What’s the best response?

Recent history suggests that the retreat is tactical, not transformational.

Authoritarian movements rarely end because of a single reversal. They end because sustained, strategic pressure makes continuation impossible.

Recent state-level pullbacks may feel like victories. At best, they’re Round 1.

As journalists like Rachel Maddow have emphasized—and as political scientist Erica Chenoweth has demonstrated empirically—authoritarian systems can collapse when a surprisingly small minority commits to prolonged, nonviolent, organized resistance.

Think “No Kings Day,” but sustained. Strategic. Relentless.

There’s no single magic script. But there are models worth studying—people who are using their professional skills, platforms, and credibility to do real work at a critical moment:

🔹 Sabrina I. Pacifici, MSLIS documents the erosion of science, public health, and the rule of law at LLRX.

🔹 Greg Siskind challenges unlawful and destructive immigration practices.

🔹 Gregory Miller advances transparent, open-source election infrastructure through the TrustTheVote Project.

🔹 Michael D.J. Eisenberg teaches lawyers how to use mobile phones and dash cams to document police misconduct.

🔹 Damien Riehl, Kara Peterson and Cat Moon have shown that petitions and coordinated legal action can matter more than cynics assume.

None of this is easy—or guaranteed—but the evidence suggests it works. History suggests it’s how turning points begin. Do what you can. But do something.

What is the best way that you or your organization can contribute?

Many legal professionals have created blog-type content on platforms like Substack in recent years. Changes in Substack’s corporate ownership and related fears of what Cory Doctorow calls “enshittifcation” are motivating many to seek alternatives.

In my view, independently owned blogs are the best alternative. An upcoming LLRX article will explain this in detail. This post supplements that article by discussing alternatives to Substack and blogs.

Here is a practical overview of the leading options:

  • Medium. Medium operates less as a newsletter infrastructure provider and more as a centralized publishing network. Its core advantage is built-in audience discovery: writers can tap into Medium’s existing readership through topic tags, curation, and algorithmic distribution, without needing to build an email list from scratch. The barrier to entry is low — no hosting setup, no payment processing configuration, and no technical maintenance. Monetization occurs through the Medium Partner Program, which pays based on member reading time rather than direct subscriptions to a specific writer. That model can benefit newer writers seeking exposure, but it also limits pricing control and audience ownership. Writers do not control the subscriber relationship in the same way they would on Ghost, Beehiiv, or Kit, and earnings can fluctuate based on opaque algorithmic factors. Medium is strongest for writers prioritizing reach and frictionless publishing over economic independence and direct reader monetization.
  • Ghost.  Ghost is the closest thing to a like-for-like Substack replacement with a fundamentally different ownership model. Ghost is open-source and nonprofit-structured, which means there is no venture capital pressure to financialize the platform or extract revenue from writers. Ghost charges a flat monthly hosting fee — starting at around $9/month — with no percentage cut of subscription revenue. By comparison, Substack’s 10 percent cut of a publication generating $60,000 per year costs $6,000 annually; Ghost would cost $348. Ghost is also self-hostable: if Ghost the company were to close, a publisher could continue running their membership business indefinitely using the open-source code. The primary tradeoffs are less built-in audience discovery than Substack and somewhat weaker community/social features. Ghost is the strongest choice for established writers prioritizing control and economics.
  • Beehiiv.  Beehiiv was built by former Morning Brew executives and is optimized for email newsletter publishing and monetization. Its analytics are stronger than Substack’s, its ad monetization tools are more developed, and it has actively positioned itself as a platform-neutral alternative — arguing it is email software rather than a social platform, which sidesteps the content moderation quagmires Substack has repeatedly encountered. Beehiiv claims nearly 3,000 Substack migrations in a recent twelve-month period. It is a strong option for writers whose primary revenue model is advertising rather than subscriptions.
  • Patreon.  Patreon is better suited for multimedia creators and writers with tiered membership models. Lyz Lenz’s successful migration there in 2025 demonstrated it can work well for writers with established audiences. It offers more flexible membership tier structures than Substack and a different community model. Its primary limitation for newsletter-focused writers is that its email tooling is less sophisticated than dedicated newsletter platforms.
  • Kit.  Kit (formerly ConvertKit) prioritizes sophisticated email marketing automation — segmentation, automated sequences, conditional logic — that Substack simply does not offer. Writers who want to build complex reader journeys, segment their audience by interest or subscription level, or integrate their newsletter with other tools will find Kit significantly more capable. It charges on a per-subscriber basis rather than a revenue percentage.
  • Buttondown.  Buttondown is a lightweight, developer-friendly option for writers who want simplicity and low cost without the overhead of a full platform. Its web archive is limited compared to other options, but its newsletter tools are clean and functional. A good choice for writers who primarily want to send email and maintain a minimal web presence.

Larger monitors can be a giant productivity booster. Document review becomes dramatically more efficient when you can display full contract pages side by side without scrolling or zooming. Redlining becomes less tedious when the original and marked versions sit comfortably alongside each other at readable sizes. Research flows more smoothly when case law, statutes, and your brief occupy the same screen space. Eliminating even 60 seconds of window-switching per hour yields meaningful time savings over a year of practice.

Larger displays also reduce eye strain during marathon drafting sessions. Rather than squinting at compressed text or constantly toggling between windows, attorneys can work at comfortable font sizes while maintaining multiple reference materials in view. This ergonomic advantage translates to fewer headaches and sustained focus during demanding workdays.

Some prefer a single, expansive ultrawide monitor (34 inches or larger). This single expanse eliminates the divisive bezel, a feature preferred by those whose workflows require a seamless, panoramic view of complex data—such as large financial models or legal text comparisons. The choice between a multi-panel array and a single, formidable display is less a financial matter than a meditation on one’s preferred working geometry.

Adding monitors is straightforward on modern operating systems. The most effective configuration depends on the task and the available desk layout. Many prefer a central 27-inch display flanked by smaller screens for ancillary documents or communication streams.

Pro Tip: Get expert advice on finding high-quality monitors (and anything else you might want to buy) from trusted sources such as The New York Times Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, or PC Magazine.

The idea that buying some new piece of hardware or software will make our lives easier is tempting. It’s usually a bad idea.

Many professionals operate their core software—be it a word processor, spreadsheet, or project management platform—at only a fraction of its capacity, leaving a vast reservoir of time-saving features untapped. Becoming an expert in your most important tools is a major productivity multiplier.

Consider your primary writing tool, such as Microsoft Word. Going beyond basic text entry by mastering built-in features like Styles and Macros is transformative. Styles ensure consistent formatting, enable instant, document-wide changes, and automatically generate a professional table of contents or table of authorities, saving hours of manual adjustments and eliminating formatting headaches. Macros automate recurring tasks.

Pro Tip: Google Docs is a worthy competitor to MS Word—unless your organization has been assimilated by the Borg.

Bonus Pro Tip: Are macros too much for you? Learn just enough about them to identify where they would help you most, then ask your IT staff to develop one or more.