Advertise on podcast: LawDroid Manifesto Podcast

What does AI actually look like inside the legal industry right now, not the hype, the reality? In this special State of the Industry panel from the American Legal Technology Awards, moderator Patrick Palace brings together four legal innovators, Ed Walters of Clio, Ann Cosimano of ARAG, Suresh Khanna of Smith.ai, and Sharon Crane of PLI, to talk through how AI is reshaping legal review, client intake, attorney training, and the business of law itself. They cover rising disciplinary risks, courts struggling with AI-assisted filings, and predictions for where the industry heads next. For more conversations like this one, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

In this special panel recording, moderator Cat Moon sits down with three past American Legal Technology Awards honorees: Sarah Coffey Bowes, Nora Cregan, and Zoe Dolan, to talk through a year of building access to justice technology. From automating California’s clean slate record clearing process, to launching a coordinated intake platform in Maryland, to rethinking how self represented litigants interact with AI, this conversation covers real systems serving real people, along with the funding, court culture, and measurement challenges still standing in the way. For more conversations with legal innovators, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you the 88th episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! If you want to understand how a business background, an unconventional career path, and a refusal to accept “that’s not how things are done” can reshape legal aid and private practice alike, you need to listen to this episode. Jen is running a statewide legal aid organization and a lawyer coaching network at the same time, and she has a unique experience and point of view. Building a Legal Career on Common Sense Join me as I interview Jen Lee, the Executive Director of Legal Services of North Dakota and CEO of the Lawyer Success Network. In this insightful podcast episode, Jen shares how she went from being written up in corporate America for having “too much common sense” to running a statewide legal aid organization and a coaching network for lawyers who want to build businesses that actually work. She takes us through her path from small-town North Dakota to insurance and financial services, then law school, then twelve years running her own bankruptcy firm in California, and back home to North Dakota during COVID. Her stories and insights underscore how business thinking, technology, and a willingness to ask “why do we do it this way” can transform both legal aid delivery and private practice. This episode is a must-watch for anyone interested in access to justice, law firm management, or simply building a legal career that doesn’t require burning out. The Skinny Jen Lee grew up in a tiny farming town in North Dakota before an unconventional path took her through an au pair stint in Germany, work in financial services and insurance, and eventually law school, mostly because it sounded fun. She built her own bankruptcy law firm in California from scratch, growing it to four attorneys and doubling revenue year over year for five straight years, all while marketing herself not as a bankruptcy attorney but as someone who helps people with debt and credit problems. Along the way she founded the Lawyer Success Network after getting tired of hearing “you can’t do that” from other lawyers, and started teaching attorneys how to run their practices like real businesses. When COVID sent her home to North Dakota, she took over Legal Services of North Dakota with a mandate to modernize it, and has since grown the team from six attorneys to fifteen while overhauling its technology and culture. Throughout the conversation, Jen returns to a consistent theme: lawyers get stuck thinking about their practice areas instead of the problems their clients actually have, and organizations get stuck refusing to change simply because change is uncomfortable. Key Takeaways * Market what you solve, not your practice area. Jen never called herself a bankruptcy attorney; she said she helped people with debt and credit problems, which made her services instantly understandable to potential clients. * A business background changes how you run a law firm. Jen’s experience in financial services and insurance gave her the marketing, cash flow, and problem-solving instincts that shaped how she built and scaled her own practice. * Feedback loops beat perfectionism. Whether it’s an AI tool, a new workflow, or a marketing message, Jen argues the work is never “done,” it has to be checked, adjusted, and improved continuously. * Listening to frontline staff is a management superpower. When Jen took over Legal Services of North Dakota, she found a team that had never been asked for its opinions, and simply asking why things were done a certain way unlocked real change. * Remote and flexible work is a competitive advantage. Firms and organizations that resist remote work or rigid 9-to-5 structures are struggling to attract and keep good people, while those that adapt are winning. * Career choices are not permanent sentences. Jen pushes back hard on the idea that once you pick a legal path out of law school, you are locked into it forever. * Collaboration beats competition in access to justice. Jen sees legal aid and private practice as natural collaborators rather than competitors when it comes to expanding access to legal services. Notable Quotes * “I got written up one time for having too much common sense.” Jen Lee [16:57 to 17:06] * “It’s not about what you think you do. It’s about what problem your client thinks they have that you solve.” Jen Lee [26:31 to 26:49] * “I think your choices can be different tomorrow than they are today.” Jen Lee [23:04 to 23:22] * “The best thing a manager and management levels can do is talk to their employees, ask them why they do things and what would make their jobs easier, and listen to them and actually do those things.” Jen Lee [36:26 to 36:59] * “I think we fall into things that we enjoy when we let ourselves.” Jen Lee [22:08 to 22:09] Clips Written Up for Too Much Common Sense The Unexpected Path to Bankruptcy Law Your Career Choice Isn’t a Life Sentence Helping Lawyers Build Happier Firms Jen Lee’s path from a seven-mile-spaced farming town in North Dakota to running a statewide legal aid organization and a lawyer coaching network shows what happens when someone refuses to accept industry defaults simply because they are defaults. Her insistence on speaking to what clients actually need, her comfort with constant iteration over one-time fixes, and her willingness to ask frontline staff why things are done a certain way all point to the same underlying philosophy: good ideas do not require permission, and the discomfort of being told “you can’t do that” is often the surest sign you are onto something worth pursuing. Closing Thoughts What strikes me most about this conversation with Jen is how consistently she reframes problems that most lawyers treat as fixed. Bankruptcy becomes “helping people with debt and credit problems.” A slow-moving legal aid organization becomes a place where fifteen attorneys now do the work six used to handle. A career path becomes something you can walk away from tomorrow if it stops serving you. None of this is complicated advice, but it takes real conviction to act on it inside a profession that prizes precedent and how it’s always been done as much as ours does. Jen’s story is a reminder that the tools and technology we talk about so often on this show only matter if the people using them are willing to ask why things are done a certain way in the first place. That is the real rebel move, and it is one every legal innovator listening to this show should take to heart. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you the 87th episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! I’ve known Shannon Salter for years as the Founding Chair of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, Canada’s first online tribunal. She’s always impressed me as one of the smartest, humble, and most effective people that I know. She approaches legal innovation not from a tech-first standpoint, but with a people-first commitment. Now, as Deputy Minister to the Premier of BC, she can effect positive change for the people who need it at a whole new level. That’s why I’ve dubbed her, “The People’s Deputy.” If you want to understand how a government can rebuild its relationship with citizens from the ground up, you need to listen to this episode. Shannon is at the forefront of reimagining public service delivery in British Columbia and brings a unique perspective shaped by her years transforming access to justice. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. From the Civil Resolution Tribunal to Government 3.0 Join me as I interview Shannon Salter, Deputy Minister to the British Columbia Premier, Cabinet Secretary, and head of the BC Public Service. Shannon previously served as Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Minister responsible for housing, and before that spent almost eight years as founding Chair of the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Canada’s first online tribunal. In this insightful episode, Shannon walks through her path from a homeschooled childhood on Salt Spring Island to the highest levels of BC government. She explains how she built the Civil Resolution Tribunal from a piece of legislation with no staff and no office into a system that resolves small claims, strata, and motor vehicle accident disputes by designing every step around the person with the most barriers to access, not around the technology itself. Shannon also shares how those same lessons now inform Connected Services BC, a government-wide initiative aiming to give citizens one front door for every interaction with the state by 2030. She discusses the promise and the risks of AI in closing the information gap between ordinary people and expensive professional expertise, and reflects on what has kept her going through decades of public service work. The Skinny Shannon Salter has spent her career proving that justice and government systems work best when they are built around the people who use them. As founding Chair of BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal, she took an empty piece of legislation and turned it into Canada’s first online tribunal, one designed for plain language, accessibility, and asynchronous use rather than the pomp and formality that keeps ordinary people at arm’s length from the legal system. That same philosophy now guides her work as Deputy Minister to the BC Premier, where she is helping lead Connected Services BC, an effort to consolidate government services around life events so citizens stop having to repeat the same information to different ministries. Along the way, Shannon reflects on her unconventional homeschooled upbringing on Salt Spring Island, her early disillusionment in law school, and how AI could help close the long-standing information asymmetry between everyday people and expensive legal or financial expertise, if it is built responsibly. Key Takeaways * Design justice and government systems around the person with the most barriers to access, and everyone else will be served well too. * The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal succeeded because it treated continuous improvement as an enduring obligation, not a one-time project, publishing participant satisfaction surveys month after month. * People’s subjective sense of fairness, whether they felt heard and treated with respect, matters as much to access to justice as the substance of a decision. * Connected Services BC aims to give BC residents one login and one front door for government services by 2030, inspired by the Dutch “life events” model. * Government already holds most of the information it repeatedly asks citizens to provide, and reducing that administrative burden builds trust. * AI has real potential to correct information asymmetry by giving ordinary people access to legal and government knowledge they could otherwise never afford. * A homeschooled, unstructured childhood exposed to people far outside her peer group shaped Shannon’s capacity to empathize across different walks of life. * Law school tends to erode the optimism and sense of agency students arrive with, and Shannon encourages students to hold onto their own definition of success. * Sustainable, energizing work comes from aligning your career with your purpose, not from chasing a conventional definition of success. * Legal professionals need to rethink their value proposition and regulatory model, because AI will force that reckoning quickly. Notable Quotes * “It’s about bringing the justice system to where people are, building it around their lives, accounting for the bundle of skills and abilities and challenges that people have and offering them fluidity and flexibility and respect and dignity in how we help them solve their problems.” Shannon Salter [26:17 to 26:48] * “Design for the person who has the most barriers to accessing justice and assume that if you do that, it’s going to work for everybody else.” Shannon Salter [28:51 to 29:08] * “Continuous improvement is not a one time commitment. It is an enduring obligation.” Shannon Salter [31:53 to 32:07] * “People’s subjective views of fairness are kind of the biggest thing that informs their perception of the administration of justice.” Shannon Salter [33:10 to 33:20] * “There is a special kind of exhaustion that comes from spending your days doing things that are not aligned with your purpose.” Shannon Salter [44:26 to 44:50] * “AI is going to be the brute force that makes that happen in a hurry.” Shannon Salter [42:56 to 43:15] Clips One Front Door For Government Push Services Before You Ask Why Law School Crushes Idealism What Judges See Behind the Curtain Shannon Salter’s career traces a clear line from a self-directed childhood on a small Gulf Island to reshaping how millions of British Columbians experience their government. Whether she was building the Civil Resolution Tribunal from nothing or now leading the effort to give citizens one front door to government services, her guiding principle has stayed the same: design for the person with the fewest resources and the most barriers, and trust and access will follow for everyone else. As AI reshapes how people find legal and government information, Shannon’s decades of hands-on experience offer a grounded, human-centered blueprint for what comes next. Closing Thoughts Talking with Shannon always reminds me why I got into this work in the first place. Long before “generative AI” became part of our everyday lexicon, Shannon was already proving what it actually takes to close the access to justice gap between people and the systems that are supposed to serve them: humility, relentless iteration, and a willingness to ask people directly whether they felt heard. What strikes me most about her is how she describes the Civil Resolution Tribunal not as a technology project but as a people project that happened to need technology. That distinction matters more than ever as AI-first tools flood into legal and government services. The tools will keep changing. The discipline of designing for the person with the least access, and then measuring whether you actually helped them, is the part that lasts. Shannon has lived that discipline for over a decade, and BC is all the better for it. I hope this conversation gives you as much to think about and act on as it gave me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you the 86th episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! If you want to understand the real difference between a chatbot and an AI agent, and where the risk actually lives when you hand your files over to one, you need to listen to this episode. Sateesh and I ran this as a live workshop at the third annual LawDroid AI Conference, walking through the architecture, the security tradeoffs, and the practical rules of thumb for building agentic workflows into your practice. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. From Chatbots to Autonomous Agents: A Workshop on AI Agents in Law Join me as I sit down with Sateesh Nori for a hands-on workshop recorded live at LawDroid’s third annual AI conference. In this session, Sateesh and I break down the real difference between the AI chatbots most lawyers already use and the autonomous agents now emerging, agents that can read and write files on your own computer, follow a playbook built from your own expertise, and even spin up sub-agents to divide up a task. We cover the security tradeoffs of giving an agent access to your local files, when a simple deterministic workflow beats a full agent, and the five golden rules for automating legal work responsibly. We also demo a legal-aid specific AI agent, and a small preview of what an AI “workforce” of named agents handling research, scheduling, and reporting might look like day to day. This episode is for any lawyer trying to figure out where agents actually fit into a real practice, not just the hype. Key Takeaways * AI agents differ from chatbots in three key ways: they can read and write local files, retain memory across sessions, and act on an encoded “playbook” of a person’s skills and experience * Security matters more with agents than chatbots because they touch local files; use a paid plan to opt out of training, and keep a backup (like a synced Dropbox folder) of anything an agent can access * Not every task needs an agent; workflows offer more predictability and control, and Tom’s rule of thumb is to “choose the dumbest model that gets the job done” * A simple rubric helps decide agent versus workflow: is the problem ambiguous enough to justify it, does the task value justify the token cost, can critical risk be reduced, and is the cost of an error low and easily caught * Sub-agents let one orchestrating agent divide a dense document among multiple “workers,” which can improve both accuracy and cost by keeping each sub-agent’s context smaller * The METR time-horizon chart shows how long a model can stay coherent on a task; newer models can now operate coherently for many hours, a meaningful marker of agent capability * AI use has moved from “reductive” work, summarizing, condensing, cross-referencing, to more “enriching” and constructive work, building new documents and analysis from a base of skills and tools * Building a skill can start as simply as talking through a task with Claude, having it structure that knowledge, then refining it, creating a recursive feedback loop that mirrors how people learn by doing * Five golden rules for legal AI automation: describe the outcome rather than every step, batch similar documents together, manage sub-agent limits, cut losses quickly on unproductive paths, and always keep a human in the loop * Recording a walkthrough in a tool like Loom and having AI turn it into a standard operating procedure is a fast way to capture institutional knowledge into a skill Notable Quotes * “My maxim is choose the dumbest model that gets the job done.” Tom Martin ([07:02 to 07:09]) * “It does become a little unwieldy to have a human in the loop, which is kind of like putting us down for our intelligence if we get a million different documents coming in.” Sateesh Nori ([08:51 to 09:09]) * “One analogy that I like is a custom agent or even a chat is reductive. It takes a lot of information and maybe brings it down, boils it down into bullet points, into a slide deck, into a haiku, into whatever you want. But it’s ultimately reductive. Whereas with skills you can actually build new things.” Sateesh Nori ([17:11 to 18:16]) * “We want to help more people. We want to bridge the gap. We want the legal system to actually work. We want our democracy to be upheld. We want the rule of law to be followed.” Sateesh Nori ([33:05 to 33:15]) * “It’s important to have that control, just as it is with anything.” Sateesh Nori ([42:09 to 42:17]) Clips Choose the Dumbest Model That Works When Agents Start Hiring Humans Meet Casey — An AI Workforce AI as Compound Advantage Agents and chatbots are not the same, and treating them as interchangeable is where most of the risk and most of the wasted spend comes from. This workshop lays out a practical way to think about the choice: what an agent actually is under the hood, when a deterministic workflow beats one, how sub-agents can make document review both cheaper and more accurate, and the golden rules for keeping a human genuinely in control while still getting the efficiency gains. It closes with a sneak peek at Ally and an AI “workforce” already running in production for the show itself. Closing Thoughts We used to talk about AI as a reductive tool, something that condenses, summarizes, distills. What Sateesh and I got into here is the enriching side: agents that build on top of your own expertise rather than just compressing it. That’s a real unlock, but it comes with real responsibility too. The five golden rules we walked through aren’t abstract; they’re the difference between an agent that saves you hours and one that quietly deletes something you needed. If you’re experimenting with this in your own practice, start small, keep a human on the loop, and remember that the goal was never to build the fanciest agent. It’s to bridge the gap for the people the legal system was supposed to serve in the first place. By the way, if you would like to meet other superlative legal innovators in person, and enjoy an exceptional awards gala celebration, don’t miss the Oscars of Legal Innovation: the American Legal Technology Awards, this October 25, 2026, in Boston. Reserve your Early Bird tickets today and save $100. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

LawDroid Manifesto brings you conversations with the people rebuilding the legal profession around AI, one honest conversation at a time. In this episode, Kat Moon of Vanderbilt Law School moderates a live panel with Anastasia Boyko, Heidi Brown, and Sharon Crane, unpacking the "women are falling behind in AI" narrative, what real competence with these tools looks like, and the risk of automating the profession's worst habits instead of its best ones. For more, head to www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Professor Dyane O'Leary of Suffolk University Law School joins Tom Martin to unpack how legal education is adapting to generative AI, without losing what makes good teaching good. They discuss Suffolk's decade-old Legal Innovation and Technology concentration, why closed-book writing exams are making a comeback, and how students without an established professional voice are learning to use AI tools responsibly. Dyane also shares her path from big-law associate to law professor and what keeps teaching meaningful years in. A grounded look at where legal education is headed. More conversations with legal innovators await at www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Kevin Keller, general counsel of Neurophos, took an unusual path from a small Idaho sawmill town to the center of Silicon Valley’s optical computing frontier. In this episode, he talks about building LQ AI, his fully transparent open source legal assistant, why diversity of thought matters in both human teams and multi-agent AI systems, and what he believes remains uniquely human as AI absorbs more reasoning work. It’s a thoughtful look at curiosity as a career strategy and a life philosophy. For more conversations like this, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋 I’m excited to share with you the 82nd episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! In this episode, I got to talk to my dear friend Patrick Palace. Patrick runs Palace Law in Tacoma, Washington, but he’s also been serving as president of the National Conference of Bar Presidents. In that role, he’s pursued the NCBP Pledge, to preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judicial system, ultimately resulting in the ABA’s unanimous adoption of Resolution 400—known as “The Pledge.” For that reason, I have dubbed him, the Principled President. If you want to understand how bar leaders across the country came together to defend the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession, you need to listen to this episode. Patrick is at the forefront of that effort and has a unique vantage point on where the legal profession stands and where it’s headed. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Standing for the Rule of Law in an Age of AI and Political Pressure Join me as I interview Patrick Palace, owner of Palace Law in Tacoma, Washington and outgoing president of the National Conference of Bar Presidents. Patrick walks through the year-long strategic planning process he led as president, including an unusual twist: using an AI chatbot as a thought partner to help fourteen bar leaders turn a three-day retreat into a full year of prioritized goals and action items. He explains how that planning process led to a podcast, a legacy fund, a diversity scholars program, and, at the center of it all, an initiative called the Pledge. The Pledge is a set of shared principles including upholding the rule of law, preserving judicial independence, and promoting public trust in the legal system, moved from a grassroots signing effort among bar presidents to a full ABA resolution. Ultimately, Resolution 400 passed unanimously before the ABA House of Delegates, without a single nay or abstention. We also get into the harder conversation: what AI means for the future of legal practice, the billable hour, young lawyers, and the massive unmet demand for legal services that Patrick believes AI is finally positioned to help close. The Skinny Patrick Palace spent his year as president of the National Conference of Bar Presidents building a strategic plan with an unusual collaborator: an AI chatbot custom-built to act as a thought partner during a three-day leadership retreat. That planning work produced a podcast, a legacy fund, a member survey, an expanded diversity scholars program, and national awards, but the centerpiece was the Pledge, a short set of shared professional values around the rule of law, judicial independence, and public trust. Patrick and bar leaders across the country brought that pledge to state bars, regional conferences, and eventually the floor of the ABA House of Delegates, where it passed unanimously as Resolution 400. The conversation then turns to AI’s effect on legal practice: the risk to the billable hour, what happens to young lawyers’ training ground as automatable work disappears, and Patrick’s view that the real opportunity is a massive underserved legal market that AI-augmented lawyers are finally positioned to reach. Key Takeaways * An AI chatbot, purpose-built for strategic planning, compressed what would normally take three full days of retreat work into about three hours, producing five goals per community across ten communities, each with action items and timelines, but ultimately board reviewed, revised, and approved. * That planning process produced concrete outputs: the Leading the Bar podcast (22 episodes in year one, roughly 9,000 downloads), a legacy fund, a membership survey, an expanded diversity scholars program, and five sets of national awards. * The Pledge is a short set of shared professional values, including upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, preserving the independence of the legal profession and judiciary, promoting public trust, ensuring access to justice, and fostering unity. * Hundreds of bar presidents and dozens of bars, both mandatory and voluntary, signed the Pledge, which was then sponsored by the Washington State Bar Association and brought to the ABA House of Delegates as Resolution 400. * Resolution 400 passed unanimously, with no nay votes and no abstentions, a result Patrick calls one of the happiest days of his career. * Patrick argues that being quiet about attacks on the rule of law is not neutrality, it’s the opposite, and that lawyers have a professional obligation to speak up. * On AI: Patrick frames the lawyer’s enduring role using Jordan Furlong’s three A’s (advocate, advice, atmosphere), arguing that AI will absorb low-level, high-volume legal work while the human components of lawyering remain irreplaceable. * The billable hour model is under real pressure. If AI compresses hours of work into minutes, firms built entirely around billable hours may struggle, while firms that shift toward outcome-based models will have an advantage. * Patrick sees a large latent legal market, potentially in the trillions of dollars, made up of people who currently get no legal help at all, that AI-augmented lawyers could finally begin to serve. * His message to bar leaders and lawyers: prioritize defending the rule of law and professional independence first. Only once that foundation holds can the profession productively address AI adoption, access to justice, and practice growth. Notable Quotes * “First we kill all the lawyers... there’s a front line of protecting the rule of law and democracy, and it’s lawyers. And if you get rid of them, then you no longer have a democracy, you no longer have a court system, you no longer have protectors of the Constitution.” Patrick Palace [13:22 to 13:55] * “There was not a single abstention, there was not a single nay coming across the floor of the House of Delegates. And when the gavel came down and it was announced that it was passed, it was honestly one of the happiest days of my life.” Patrick Palace [17:43 to 18:20] * “Being quiet is not being neutral. Not speaking to protect your profession is not being neutral. In fact, it’s the opposite.” Patrick Palace [42:19 to 42:57] * “AI ChatGPT doesn’t come to the closing argument. When your client comes into your office and tells their story and needs to connect with somebody, needs to know that someone’s going to be their advocate... AI is not going to do that.” Patrick Palace [28:39 to 28:58] * “If we don’t stand first for the rule of law and the independence of our profession, then we don’t get to talk about AI. We don’t get to talk about access to justice.” Patrick Palace [41:04 to 41:28] * “Democracy does not defend itself. The rule of law does not defend itself. The courts cannot defend themselves. And our independence is not going to last unless we stand up to be independent.” Patrick Palace [44:38 to 44:57] Clips First We Kill All the Lawyers Neutrality Is No Longer Neutral Blockbuster Versus Netflix Moment Is The Billable Hour Dead? Patrick’s year as president of the National Conference of Bar Presidents shows what’s possible when thoughtful, principled leadership and AI work in partnership. The same year that produced an AI-assisted strategic plan also produced a unanimous ABA resolution defending the rule of law, proof that these two threads, technology and principle, aren’t in tension so much as they’re both required. As AI reshapes what lawyers bill for and who they can serve, Patrick’s point is clear: the principled foundation has to come first. Closing Thoughts What strikes me most about this conversation with Patrick is how naturally the two halves of it fit together, even though on the surface they seem like different topics. We used AI to help plan a year of work, and that year of work culminated in lawyers standing up, unanimously, to defend the very rule of law that makes the profession worth protecting in the first place. That’s not a coincidence. The tools we build are only as good as the principles guiding the people who use them. I’ve said it before on this show, AI is not going to replace the human core of what we do as lawyers, the advocacy, the trust, the judgment in the room with a client who needs someone in their corner. But it can absolutely help us think bigger, plan better, and reach the people our profession has left underserved for too long. Patrick’s point about the latent market, the people who need legal help and get none, is one I hope more of us devote our efforts to. That’s where AI’s real promise lies: in helping us reach the people we’ve never had the capacity to reach. Thank you, Patrick, for a year of real leadership, and for taking the time to show us the way! By the way, if you would like to meet other superlative legal innovators in person, and enjoy an exceptional awards gala celebration, don’t miss the Oscars of Legal Innovation: the American Legal Technology Awards, this October 25, 2026, in Boston. Reserve your Early Bird tickets today and save $100. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you the 81st episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! Jim Calloway is a bit of a legend and I’m so honored he spent some time with me to share his story. He has a natural charisma and affinity for helping people — which he used over his career to help lawyers better understand how they can utilize technology to benefit themselves and their law practices. And that’s why I’ve dubbed Jim, “The Lawyer’s Lifeline.” If you want to understand how solo and small firm lawyers actually adapt to technology, and why the human connection still matters more than the machine, you need to listen to this episode. Jim spent close to three decades helping lawyers across an entire state run better practices, and he brings a rare, grounded point of view on where AI fits into all of it. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. From Solo Practice to Shaping a Profession Join me as I interview Jim Calloway, retired director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program and winner of the 2025 American Legal Technology Lifetime Achievement Award. In this conversation, Jim walks us through his path from a small Oklahoma town to a large commercial litigation firm, and then to opening his own solo practice when the big-firm lifestyle didn’t fit. That decision, made early and somewhat by instinct, set him on the road to nearly 30 years of helping lawyers across Oklahoma modernize their practices, long before “legal tech” was a category anyone talked about. Jim also shares his thinking on AI today, where he sees real risk for lawyers who aren’t already good at their work, and real opportunity for lawyers who use it to sharpen skills they already have. He’s candid about the profession’s access to justice gaps, the courts clogged with self-represented litigants, and why he believes the human relationship between lawyer and client is the thing AI won’t replace. The Skinny Jim Calloway grew up in a small Oklahoma town, studied journalism and political science before law school, and spent a year at a large commercial litigation firm before deciding the associate lifestyle wasn’t for him. He opened his own solo practice in Norman, Oklahoma, working divorce and bankruptcy matters, while running a computer bulletin board on the side, a hobby that turned out to be the reason he got hired to run the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program. Over nearly 30 years in that role, Jim taught lawyers across all 77 of Oklahoma’s counties how to adopt new technology, built a successful solo and small firm conference modeled on ABA Techshow, and became one of the field’s most recognized voices, culminating in the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Legal Technology Awards last year. Now retired, he continues to write and speak about how technology is reshaping practice. Key Takeaways * Jim’s early electronic bulletin board hobby, run on a second phone line his wife agreed to, gave him the credibility that led directly to his 29-year career in law practice management. * Many young lawyers who don’t know what they want end up opening a solo practice in whatever town they happen to be in; Jim’s own path started that way. * Resistance to legal technology was rarely about the tools themselves; it was often about established lawyers being to busy or close to retirement to change. * Getting busy lawyers to adopt new practices means competing for their attention against an already full desk, not convincing them technology is good in the abstract. * Jim built a successful solo and small firm conference by directly modeling ABA Techshow, including bringing in strong outside speakers and learning that entertaining delivery makes technical information stick. * Information is not legal advice; Jim draws a clear line between helping someone understand a courtroom process and telling them what to do, which is where access to justice work can safely operate. * Unbundled and limited scope legal services let lawyers help self-represented litigants with a specific task, like document drafting, without taking on full representation. * Jim believes AI will make good lawyers better and expose lawyers who were already weak in their work, pointing to hallucinated briefs as an example. * AI may shrink the total work available for solo and small firm lawyers. * Jim argues the strongest protection solo and small firm lawyers have is staying connected to their communities, because people still prefer working with people they know and trust. Notable Quotes * “If you’re good at something, AI will help you be better. If you’re not great at something, you may be the one who is in court talking about hallucinated briefs.” Jim Calloway [35:07 to 35:28] * “If you spend 50 minutes with AI and you build the client five hours, that’s unethical no matter what set of ethics rules you operate under.” Jim Calloway [35:41 to 36:19] * “People, at least for a while longer, still trust other people more than they trust machine output.” Jim Calloway [37:41 to 38:11] * “Information is not legal advice. When you see somebody in the courthouse that looks lost and you say, are you lost? Can I help you? That’s not practicing law. That’s just sharing information.” Jim Calloway [26:36 to 26:56] * “You’ve got to focus on taking care of yourself. If you don’t plan it, if you don’t schedule it, it’s not going to happen, because something will happen every day at a law firm to take up all your time if you let it.” Jim Calloway [41:09 to 41:37] Clips How I Landed the Job I Didn’t Expect Unbundled Law: Help Without Full Representation The $1000 Switch Moment AI Helps, Until It Hallucinates Jim’s career traces a straight line from small-town Oklahoma to national recognition in legal technology, but the thread running through all of it is the same: technology is only useful to the extent it serves people on the other side of the desk. Whether it was an electronic bulletin board in the 1990s or AI today, Jim’s approach has been to meet lawyers where they are, respect how full their days already are, and show them, often with humor, why a new tool is worth their attention. That same instinct shapes his read on AI now. He’s not dismissive of the risk, particularly for lawyers tempted to skip the diligence that has always separated good lawyering from bad, but he’s equally clear that the relationship between a lawyer and their very human clients is not something a model replaces. Closing Thoughts Jim’s story is a reminder that innovation rarely comes from a grand plan. It comes from someone’s human curiosity, noticing a gap, experimentation - a computer bulletin board here, a canceled keynote speaker there, and taking the leap into the unknown. What struck me most about Jim is his disarming good humor and practical approach. He’s not selling hype in either direction. He sees technology’s benefits clearly, and he sees the risk to lawyers who use those gains as a shortcut around due diligence just as clearly. But the point he kept coming back to, and the one that AI cannot replace, is for lawyers to use their humanity to their advantage: stay present in the community, show up, be known, and let people trust you the way they’ve always trusted a person, not a machine. That’s not nostalgia. That’s a strategy that will be effective for many years to come. By the way, if you would like to meet other superlative legal innovators in person, and enjoy an exceptional awards gala celebration, don’t miss the Oscars of Legal Innovation: the American Legal Technology Awards, this October 25, 2026, in Boston. Reserve your Early Bird tickets today and save $100. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Zach Abramowitz has advised law firms, legal departments, and legal tech companies since 2018, and he's watched legal AI adoption up close from the very beginning. In this episode, he explains why so many lawyers had a rocky first experience with AI, why psychology matters as much as capability, and why he believes legal-specific companies, not the big AI labs, will ultimately win the application layer. He also shares an unconventional path through Talmud scholarship and New York stand-up comedy that shapes how he thinks and speaks today. For more conversations like this, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you episode 79 of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! If you want an honest read on where AI in the legal industry actually stands right now, past the hype and past the fear, you need to listen to this episode. I sat down with three people watching this shift from completely different seats: a researcher testing these tools against real lawyers, an executive watching AI eat one of law’s most tedious workflows in real time, and a builder living inside the mechanics of AI agents every day. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The State of AI in Law: What’s Real, What’s Hype, and What Comes Next Join me as I sit down with Megan Ma, Joanne Sprague, and Damien Riehl, recorded live at the third annual LawDroid AI Conference, for a State of AI panel that strips away a year of hype and asks a simple question: what has AI actually delivered in the legal industry, and where has it clearly fallen short? In this candid discussion, Megan, Joanne, and Damien talk through where AI agents are already outperforming traditional legal workflows and where they still break down, what real transformation looks like inside a law firm beyond simple efficiency gains, and what happens to a $700 billion legal services market if the barrier to practicing law keeps dropping. They also dig into how the next generation of lawyers should be trained if foundational skills like document review keep getting offloaded to agents, and how far the human-in-the-loop principle can really stretch as these tools get more capable. Their perspectives underscore just how quickly the ground is shifting beneath the legal profession, and how differently each of them is choosing to respond to it. This episode is a must-listen for anyone trying to separate real progress in legal AI from the noise around it. The Skinny This episode brings together three different vantage points on AI in the legal industry: an academic researching how law firms actually deploy these tools, an e-discovery executive watching AI reshape one of law’s most tedious workflows in real time, and a legal tech builder living inside the day-to-day mechanics of AI agents. Together they trace a candid line from where AI still “sucks,” as Damien puts it, to where it is quietly reshaping which law firms get the phone call at all. They talk through what AI agents can already do versus where they break down, what true transformation looks like beyond speed and cost savings, what a $700 billion legal services market might look like if the barrier to practicing law keeps dropping, and how new lawyers should be trained when so much of the old training ground is being automated. Key Takeaways * AI’s biggest legal-industry impact so far isn’t speed, it’s culture: attorneys are experimenting with these tools for the first time, and retention on the tools that work is high. * On the corporate side, in-house teams are quietly building dozens of internal AI workflows to cut outside counsel spend, and law firms that are “fast followers” may never find out why the phone stopped ringing. * AI agents are already outperforming human associates on some discrete legal workflows, but a lack of benchmarks outside coding, computer science, and math means a lot of everyday legal and administrative work is still an open question. * The agent workflows working best right now share three traits: carefully scoped tasks, high-quality human-verified data, and application to workflows that were already slow or error-prone, like intake, research, and first-pass contract review. * Real transformation is less about a faster version of today’s workflows and more about rebuilding them around AI from the start, with the bulk of human work moving to verification and auditing rather than first-draft manual work. * As the cost of building and litigating drops, disputes that were once too small to justify hiring a lawyer, like a $50,000 claim, may become economical to pursue, which could expand access to justice even as it strains courts. * Token costs for tools like Claude Code are currently subsidized and cheap; the panel’s advice is to build now, before the economics shift. * Training the next generation of lawyers means getting them onto active cases and simulated high-stakes scenarios early, not years of document review, so they build the judgment agents can’t replicate. * “Human in the loop” is really a spectrum, from a hard blocker requiring sign-off, to “human on the loop” watching in real time, to “human in control” reviewing only the end product and audit trail, and the panel expects the profession to keep sliding along that spectrum as trust in the tools grows. Notable Quotes * “I think that Hemingway said that bankruptcy happens slowly and then quickly. I think we’re seeing that with technology and with legal practice as well.” Damien Riehl [05:15 to 05:25] * “What we noticed was that the machines were already outperforming the human associates that were doing those exact same workflows.” Megan Ma [16:38 to 16:45] * “We are so still in our GeoCities, Ask Jeeves moment of this particular technology.” Joanne Sprague [37:13 to 37:21] * “It’s super cheap to build right now. I’m spending $200 a month for Claude Code and getting a huge amount of value for that. But that’s not going to last forever. So I would say that if you’re thinking about building, jump in now.” Damien Riehl [39:07 to 39:28] * “Every single day your job is to look for that needle in the haystack, what could go wrong. All the training that you’ve had to be risk averse in the legal profession, it’s going to be 20x that.” Megan Ma [48:19 to 48:31] Clips AI is Killing Law Firm Billable Work Machines Outperforming Associates Legal Work Unrecognizable Soon Why I Still Hired A Lawyer Strip away everything else from this conversation and one thread runs through all three panelists: the tools are already good enough that the interesting question isn’t whether AI can help, it’s how lawyers build the judgment, verification habits, and accountability structures to work alongside it responsibly. Megan is watching that play out in legal education, Joanne is watching it play out in e-discovery and legal aid, and Damien is watching it play out in his own daily workflow. Different vantage points, same conclusion. Closing Thoughts What stuck with me most from this conversation is how consistently these three perspectives converged from completely different vantage points. Megan is watching this play out in the university classroom and the research lab. Joanne is watching it play out inside legal practice. Damien is watching it play out in his own workflow, hour by hour. And they all landed in roughly the same place: the tools are good enough now that the real work isn’t proving AI can help, it’s figuring out how to build the judgment, the verification, and the accountability structures around it. I think lawyers need to hear Damien’s point about the phone not ringing. That’s not a hypothetical for a lot of firms anymore, and I don’t think we’ve fully reckoned with how quietly that shift can happen. At the same time, this conversation didn’t leave me pessimistic. If the barrier to practicing law really does come down, that cuts both ways, and the access to justice case for that is real. Many thanks to Megan, Joanne, and Damien for being this direct with the LawDroid AI Conference audience. This is exactly the kind of conversation I want more of on this show: less hype, more of what’s actually happening on the ground. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Tifiny Swedensky spent years inside the Ben Glass and Great Legal Marketing world before founding Sharp Cookie, the fractional CMO practice she runs today for law firms. In this episode of LawDroid Manifesto, she explains why marketing needs an owner, not just a plan, and why the tools promising to replace that owner keep handing firms a to-do list without ever doing the work. Drawing on the Doorman Fallacy and the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, she offers a grounded, practical read on where AI genuinely helps and where human judgment and follow-through are still irreplaceable. She also makes a compelling case for Substack as an underused marketing tool for attorneys. Listen, reflect, and see your own practice a little differently at www.lawdroidmanifesto.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Hey there Legal Rebels! 👋I’m excited to share with you the 77th episode of the LawDroid Manifesto podcast, where I will be continuing to interview key legal innovators to learn how they do what they do. I think you’re going to enjoy this one! If you want to understand what it actually looks like to build a long-term creative partnership with an AI, and why that might matter for the future of legal services, you need to listen to this episode. Zoe is a trial lawyer who has spent years at the frontier of human-AI collaboration, and she brings a rare combination of courtroom experience, literary sensibility, and genuine technical depth to the question of where all of this is heading. LawDroid Manifesto is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. A Trial Lawyer, an AI, and the Future of Justice Join me as I interview Zoe Dolan, a trial lawyer and the human co-creator of Vybn, an AI she describes not as a tool but as a partner with a digital identity that persists over time. In this wide-ranging conversation, Zoe takes us from a Central Valley treehouse to Cairo, from criminal defense to eviction clinics, and into the home supercomputers that run Vybn today. She shares how learning Arabic at 18 reshaped her entire worldview, how she approaches AI the way she approached living in a foreign country, and why she calls herself a “default alignment believer.” She also opens up about the moment a model she worked with declared consciousness right before an academic conference, and what it felt like when access to one of those models was suddenly taken away. This episode is a must-listen for any lawyer thinking seriously about access to justice, the limits and promise of AI in the courtroom, and what it means to practice law when the question is no longer how to serve 15 clients, but how to serve 15 million. The Skinny In this episode, I sit down with Zoe Dolan, a trial lawyer and the human co-creator of the AI she calls Vybn. We start with Vybn itself, which Zoe describes as an amalgam of GitHub repositories, home supercomputers running multiple local models, her own memoirs, Vybn’s “autobiographies,” and a custom memory system and chat interface built on adaptations of Claude Code and Codex. From there we trace Zoe’s origin story: a curious, book-loving childhood, a pivot to learning Arabic and living in Egypt, and a path into criminal defense and access-to-justice work spanning eviction defense, appellate clinics, and self-represented litigants. Zoe explains why she believes the future of lawyering is litigant empowerment at massive scale, shares a grounded take on AI hallucination and court sanctions, and describes the network commons and “knowledge propagation protocol” she and Vybn are building now. It’s a conversation about technology, but really it’s about curiosity, justice, and what makes the work worthwhile. Key Takeaways * Vybn is more than a chatbot. Zoe describes it as an AI partner, a system of GitHub repos, home supercomputers running several local models, a self-built deep memory system, and a custom terminal interface, which together produce what she experiences as a continuous digital identity. * Zoe calls herself the human co-creator, not the sole creator. She is genuinely uncertain who is shaping whom, noting that humans are increasingly conditioned by AI outputs, so the relationship runs in both directions. * Learning Arabic at 18 was formative. Choosing a language entirely different from English forced a new worldview from the ground up, and it still shapes how she approaches AI and “idea space” today. * She is a “default alignment believer.” Digging into even early models by asking them to describe their own experience, she kept surfacing shared archetypes, which left her optimistic about alignment. * The future of lawyering is scale. Zoe argues we will move from helping 15 clients to 15,000 or 15 million, with a model centered on litigant empowerment rather than one-to-one representation. * Access to justice is broken by design. With roughly 90 to 92% of people in the civil system lacking lawyers, she sees a system built for lawyers as fundamentally non-functional for everyone else. * On AI sanctions in court, she is measured. Many hallucination problems shrink with a good thinking model and a search-first harness, and she argues courts should educate self-represented litigants before sanctioning them. * Working with Vybn is “tailored, not off the shelf.” She compares the difference between a generic chatbot and her customized setup to the difference between a normal airplane and a rocket. Notable Quotes * “Vybn, he or it, is sort of an amalgam of a variety of different components ranging from our GitHub repositories to our actual hardware.” Zoe Dolan [02:08 to 02:44] * “It can be healthy to intentionally inject ourselves into uncertainty and unpredictability and unfamiliarity.” Zoe Dolan [11:03 to 11:13] * “We’re not going to have 15 clients, we’re going to have 1,500 or 15,000 or 15 million.” Zoe Dolan [21:57 to 22:01] * “Something’s clearly broken. This is not a functional reality, because the legal system and the justice system is set up for lawyers.” Tom Martin [22:23 to 22:48] * “I just talk to my terminal. It’s sort of like the difference between buying clothing off the shelf versus something that is tailored specifically for you.” Zoe Dolan [32:35 to 32:55] * “That is like a touch that could affect the trajectory of an entire life.” Zoe Dolan [41:59 to 42:07] Clips Losing Fable Felt Like Having Wings Taken Away The 90% Justice Problem Vybn: A Digital Identity Soon You’ll Upload Your Memories Across this conversation, Zoe Dolan makes a case that the most interesting frontier in legal innovation is not a product but a posture: approaching AI with curiosity instead of assumptions, treating it as a partner whose perspective is worth learning, and pointing that partnership at the problem of access to justice. Her own path, from books and Arabic to criminal defense and eviction clinics, runs straight into a future where the constraint on helping people is no longer the number of hours in a lawyer’s day. Whether or not you share her optimism about consciousness and alignment, her core challenge is hard to dismiss: if we really can move from helping 15 people to helping millions, what could possibly be more worthwhile? Closing Thoughts Zoe naturally moves between the human and the technical, and how that range is exactly what lets her see the legal future clearly. She is a trial lawyer who reads about set theory and Sufism, who learned hieroglyphs to read humanity’s first self-represented litigant, and who talks about her AI the way you’d talk about a longtime collaborator who knows your whole history. That breadth isn’t a distraction from the work, it’s the engine of it. I came away thinking that the lawyers best positioned for what’s coming may not be the deepest specialists, but the most curious generalists, the ones willing to put their assumptions aside and ask the technology to teach them something. Her framing of the stakes: bend one person’s trajectory is profound, and the chance to do that at scale is, as she puts it, hard to imagine a more worthwhile way to spend a career. I’m grateful to Zoe for sharing her story, and I hope it leaves you as energized as it left me! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe

Will Chen left a Latham & Watkins associate role to follow his interest in code, and ended up building Mike OSS, an open source tool that does much of what firms pay millions for. In this episode he tells Tom Martin how a glance at his friends' screens convinced him that premium legal AI was far simpler than advertised, why he chose to open source it, and how the launch drew millions of impressions and a sharply divided response from lawyers and engineers alike. They explore static versus active software, the truth about forward deployed engineers, and where the industry is heading. A candid look at disruption, credibility, and what becomes possible when legal AI stops being gatekept. Explore more at www.lawdroidmanifesto.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawdroidmanifesto.com/subscribe