www.loubar.org 6 Louisville Bar Briefs PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE (Continued on next page) ©2025 Lenihan Real Estate, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Sotheby’s International Realty® and the Sotheby’s International Realty Logo are service marks licensed to Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC and used with permission. Lenihan Real Estate, LLC fully supports the principles of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Opportunity Act. Each franchise is independently owned and operated. Any services or products provided by independently owned and operated franchisees are not provided by, affiliated with or related to Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC nor any of its affiliated companies. Laura Rice & Associates 502.595.8450
[email protected] lauramovesyou.com SCAN FOR LISTINGS Raising the Bar in Real Estate Performance. Excellence You Can See. Results You Can Feel. Partner, AI, Associate: The New Hierarchy in Legal Practice Tess Hardesty The legal field has drastically changed with the introduction of artificial intelligence, including within the associate role. For decades, traditional associate tasks like document review and deposition summaries formed the associate’s early career training. Today, these tasks are at times being passed on to AI, and associates are being asked to use this ever-evolving technology, often with varying degrees of guidance. This shift cre- ates a new dynamic where technology sits between partner and associate. Associates must now balance gaining necessary legal skills and developing client trust, while maintaining their ethical duty to keep abreast of the use of AI in their legal practice. Legal Skills: Reimagining Mentorship Traditional associates could expect count- less deposition summaries, legal research projects, document review and legal drafting to hone their early career skills. However, these and other tasks that once defined an associate’s early career are increasingly being at least partially automated by AI. Partners at some firms commonly give young associates the task of summarizing depositions for the purpose of developing an associate’s skills, often allowing them to learn from a variety of attorneys on how to approach depositions (or how not to) and being able to integrate a deponent’s deposition testimony into the larger picture, whether it strengthens or weakens the case or how the deponent will present to a jury. However, with the increasing use of AI, many court reporter companies are send- ing AI summaries of the depositions with deposition transcripts. These AI deposition summaries often effectively summarize the narrative but lack the capacity to evaluate the witness and see how the testimony will impact the nuance of a case. As a first-year insurance defense associate at my prior firm, one of my first tasks was drafting a deposition summary in a medical malpractice case for an attorney who had practiced medical malpractice for more than 16 years. While the task seemed mundane at first, this deposition showed me how the partner structured deposition questions, developed rapport with the deponent and handled objections. Following my attempt at a summary, the partner sat down with me to discuss the tiny details and nuances of the testimony and how those impacted the case. That conversation gave me a picture of more than 16 years of experience and knowledge passed down through one conversation opened by a deposition summary. This loss of unintentional learning creates a gap in traditional legal mentorship. If AI handles routine legal tasks, associates risk missing out on the foundational exposure that built previous generations of lawyers. To bridge this gap, law firms must replace passive learning with intentional mentor- ship. Partners can no longer rely on admin- istrative delegation as a proxy for teaching; instead, they should engage associates directly by redlining AI drafts, evaluating prompt outputs and integrating these into trial strategy. Firm leadership cannot de- pend solely on traditional associate tasks to develop associates; partners must take deliberate action in developing those core skill sets while guiding associates on how to effectively leverage AI as a tool. Developing Client Trust: Privilege, Misinformation and Intake One of the most dreaded things a modern lawyer can hear during a client meeting is “AI said…” While this frustration seems like a minor transgression or annoyance on its face, a client consulting AI may have a lingering impact on their case. Attorneys now face an additional hurdle when building client trust: convincing clients to seek pro- fessional legal counsel before turning to AI. In February 2026, two significant opinions were released regarding a party’s use of AI. In United States v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Ra- koff (S.D.N.Y.) held that when a represented criminal defendant communicates with a publicly available AI platform regarding a pending investigation, those communica- tions are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti (E.D. Mich.) held that defendants could not seek production of all documents and information concerning a pro se plaintiff’s use of a third-party AI tool. A key distinction between these two cases is the involvement of a licensed attorney. In Heppner, the defendant communicated with an AI about his case without the direction of his counsel, resulting in the communication not being privileged. In Warner, the pro se
2026 09 - September
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
