AI and ADR: Strong Allies or Strange Bedfellows?
For those of us engaged in any aspect of alternate dispute resolution, our professional responsibilities compel us to keep abreast of the evolving trends in technology that are having an increasing impact on our practice as advocates and neutrals.
May 17, 2024 at 12:01 PM
8 minute read
Sometimes it's difficult to assess whether the practice of law has been enhanced or burdened by burgeoning technology. When I entered the profession in the early 1980s, my work as a litigation associate was very different than it is today. We did not have an array of devices to assist us in keeping track of our time or handling our work. I hand wrote my briefs on a yellow legal pad to be typed by my assistant, who would make changes using a memory typewriter. Partners' comments came in red marker (and ideally there were not too many of those). For documents longer than over 10 pages, I submitted revisions to word processing at night (in the basement) and the revised version would miraculously appear on my desk the next morning. I did my research using actual books in the vast library, where I hauled and then reviewed the hefty Shephard's volumes to make sure the cases I cited were still good law. If I needed to refer to something in the file, I made my way to the windowless labyrinth where row after row of imposing ceiling-high shelves held client papers. Suffice it to say, we did not have our own computers, laptops, tablets or other devices that may have confined our heavy lifting to the screen. Telephone service and messaging were also very different from what we are accustomed to today. We received our phone messages on small, pink squares of paper. If someone needed us urgently, the firm used a coded paging system, broadcasting a Morse code-type sequence of bells to summon you. With these methods of communication, we did not work remotely as the available technology did not support working anywhere except the office.
Against this backdrop, the Wall Street firm where I began my career offered aspiring litigators the opportunity to handle employment arbitrations to gain experience examining and cross-examining witnesses, introducing evidence and making objections. It was a crash course on presenting a case and becoming an effective advocate. In 1982, just a year out of law school, on less than 48 hours' notice I was ordered to travel cross-country to handle an arbitration. The dispute was brought by a union worker challenging his suspension for violating safety protocols at the client's manufacturing plant. I boarded the plane with a litigation bag filled with the pleadings, documents and hard copies of the arbitration and evidentiary rules, and a huge knot in my stomach. At my destination, I stayed up all night preparing my opening, witness examinations and exhibits, trying to anticipate objections. Without the internet or access to other information, I was on my own. I remember that the client representatives did not seem very confident when I walked into the arbitration room as their 24-year-old, barely 5-foot-tall advocate—to face off against a more senior adversary before a panel of three imposing arbitrators. Despite the apparent disparities in experience between counsel, we prevailed largely because the client had kept a clear record to justify its actions. What I remember most, 40-plus years later, is that the supervising partner complained that I had spent too much time preparing for the hearing!
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Supreme Court to Decide Enforceability of 'Browsewrap' Arbitration Agreements
8 minute readFrom a Mediator’s Perspective: Common Mis-steps That Parties Make at Mediation
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Greenberg Traurig Litigation Co-Chair Returning After Three Years as US Attorney
- 2DC Circuit Rejects Jan. 6 Defendants’ Claim That Pepper Spray Isn't Dangerous Weapon
- 3Quiet Retirement Meets Resounding Win: Quinn Emanuel Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan's Vimeo Victory
- 4Balancing Hybrid Work With Relationship Building, Newly Merged Ballard Spahr Prioritizes 'Coaching Aspect' of Training New Associates
- 5Texas-Based Ferguson Braswell Expands in California With 6-Lawyer Team From Orange County Law Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250