What’s next?
Now that AI has propelled the traditionally risk-averse legal industry into the unfamiliar role of early and enthusiastic adopter, what other technologies are waiting to be embraced? As Filevine’s chief legal futurist, Elliott’s job description includes answering that question. Specifically, he sees two very different approaches to legal technology in development, which can be defined by their approach to screens: maximalist or minimalist.
The maximalist camp wants screens everywhere.
“Imagine everyone in a law firm wearing a headset like the Apple Vision Pro and using that technology to mediate interactions with the devices, systems and tools they’re using. That’s one direction we could think about,” Elliott says.
He adds that, perhaps thankfully, this isn’t a direction he’s betting on — rather, he’s a screen minimalist.
“I don’t think that’s how lawyers want to work. They want fewer screens and more voice in a meaningful way,” Elliott says. “It’s not like the first wave of voice-based assistants like Alexa or Siri, which are useful for reading out the weather forecast, but aren’t sophisticated enough agents to be part of the job. AI-assisted dictation changes that and fits very well with how lawyers review documents – where the AI transcribes and then flows it in with references and citations it finds in the document.”
Elliot said, Rabbit R1 and Humane AI Pin These are examples of voice-interface gadgets that suggest a growing desire for more intuitive access to AI without additional screens.
Reduce burnout
Elliott predicts that AI will provide greater efficiency than printed text in the near future.
“This will be the year of multimodal AI, which means moving away from a purely text-centric focus to video depositions, audio from client calls, and even images,” he says. “And we’ll see AI-assisted optical character recognition better understand documents in non-standard formats that have traditionally been very difficult to interpret.”
Ironically, the real opportunity for AI in legal tech seems to be in making the legal profession more human.
“Currently, an associate needs to bill 2,600 hours per year to make quota, which translates to roughly 3,000 hours worked, leading to burnout rates far exceeding most other industries,” Baxter says. “That means people go to law school, start practice, and then leave the industry. This is not sustainable. These technologies allow law firms to make the same amount of revenue in fewer hours, avoiding the mental health issues that result.”
Elliott takes Baxter’s theory a step further, extending the costs of maintaining the status quo to society itself.
“How can we use technology to improve the overall health of the legal ecosystem?” he asks. “High turnover and burnout aren’t good for anyone. We see a lot of depression and substance abuse. We have an opportunity to use technology to treat each other better, attract and retain the best talent, and make law a powerful component of our economy, not just a cost.” 
