Yesterday I shared why legal practitioner-generated secondary law—blogs, alerts, newsletters and email newsletters—is essential to legal AI.
When AI looks at primary law, only, the result is generic or wrong because AI is guessing at how to interpret primary law. There’s no insight from legal practioners and other legal professionals to help guide AI.
The question is whether lawyers and law firms will share their publishing with AI. The answer is yes.
Lawyers are not being asked to train LLM’s. They are being asked to complement primary law on credible legal research platforms and digital legal libraries being powered by AI. It’s about bringing practitioner knowledge and publishing back into the law, where it has always belonged.
Lawyers are rightfully wary of their publishing being absorbed into LLM’s with no attribution, no control, and no professional benefit.
At the same time lawyers support their publishing being used to augment primary law by adding context, interpretation, and practical judgment into cases, statutes, and regulations.
In doing so, lawyers contribute something noble and helpful while also building authority for themselves and strengthening their name by being cited in the niches in which they publish.
Lawyers are not giving up their IP. They are publishing in places where it reaches more people, accelerates an understanding of the law, and raises their authority.
What’s emerging is not AI replacing lawyers. It is AI guided by lawyer-authored insight and commentary.
Primary law is enriched by real-world application from practicing lawyers. The result is a living body of secondary law that is searchable, attributable, and durable sitting alongside primary law and enhancing the efficiency of legal research for every lawyer.
