_edited_edited_edi.jpg){kind=small}
LAWYERS, USE AI TO IMPROVE QUALITY TO CLIENTS: A TRUE STORY
- jeangww
- Jul 9
- 2 min read
Are you just too tired and "already been there" to read another post about AI abuse by lawyers? Take heart, buck up! This story is different. It is a true story calling the legal profession to action. It should galvanize many forward-looking lawyers to better legal performance in serving their clients. How? By using AI innovatively and responsibly. Clients, you take note too.
Linked below is attorney Adam Unikowsky's version of the old story of that wonderfully human hero, John Henry, against the great steam drilling machine. Mr. Unikowski tells how he worked with the AI tool Claude 4.0 Opus to compare and judge his own performance in an actual, recent Supreme Court case. He pits brain against chips, and lives to tell about it.
A Jenner & Block appellate lawyer in Washington, D.C., Mr. Unikowsky represented a group of unemployed workers against Alabama's state Secretary of Workforce in October 2024. The case is called Williams v. Reid. He won, and by the way, this was Mr. Unikowski’s eighth career argument before the Supreme Court. His Jenner & Block bio shows an impressive record.
Mr. Unikowsky later carefully fed the actual briefs and precedent authority, along with questions posed to him by the Supreme Court Justices, into Claude, each question posed as a bot query. Then he applied his highly experienced, thoughtful mind to the question, “Who did a better job?”
First, for the record, we'll note the potential for bias when Mr. Unikowski is judging his own performance. Nevertheless, here's his verdict: "Yes, a robot lawyer would be an above-average Supreme Court advocate. ... Courts should permit robot lawyers at oral arguments and shouldn’t discourage this practice." He goes on to show how it might be done.
It's a great, current story from an accomplished legal advocate. The test and conclusions were more nuanced than what is summarized above. You can see much more in his blog (below).
What I see is a convincing counter-example to the foot-dragging of many fine lawyers, who may be scared off by overwhelming negative press. I believe we can be better lawyers by using AI.
Caveat: Let's hope Mr. Unikowsky wasn't bound and gagged by a robot, who (that?) then posted the story on Substack. But then, it might reinforce this part of the lesson: AI tools have amazing legal potential that is today far too constrained by the limits of how we use them. Let's not just wait for the bots to take over.
Comments and arguments below are welcome. What do you think? First, please click below and read Adam Unikowsky's own story.
Jonathan K. Hustis, of Fulton Jeang PLLC, is a tech general counsel serving small to mid-size businesses. He can be reached at jhustis@fultonjeang.com.
Comments