A shortcut to understanding whether it is worth going to court
According to IT之家, based on an article in Business Insider, lawyer Alex Spiro, a partner in the New York office of Quinn Emanuel and a professional often chosen by Elon Musk, believes that artificial intelligence can reduce the unnecessary stages of legal proceedings. The central idea is that automated tools make it possible to gather and organize facts and information more quickly, so as to determine in a short time whether a case should be closed with a settlement or pursued through trial.
Spiro is not speaking in the abstract: the material lists some of his clients, including actor Alec Baldwin, rapper Jay-Z, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and former New York Mayor Eric Adams. His assessment therefore comes from a professional accustomed to high-profile disputes, although the source does not specify which tools he has actually tested or with what measured results.
Fewer intermediate steps, more cases in court
A second effect cited by the lawyer concerns the possibility of eliminating many intermediate stages that today keep cases suspended between negotiations and hearings. If information is clearer from the outset, according to Spiro the time and costs of disputes could be reduced, avoiding the constant oscillation between the prospect of a settlement and the threat of judgment.
The reasoning leads to an outcome that may seem counterintuitive: with faster analysis, more cases could end up before a court. Spiro imagines a scenario in which, after ten disputes are examined, nine are closed with a settlement and only one is pursued decisively. In his view, the reduction of uncertainty could encourage companies not to abandon, out of fear of risk, battles they consider necessary in any case.
The strategy remains the same as ever
Spiro makes clear, however, that AI does not affect the heart of the legal profession. For twenty years, he explains, his way of conducting a case and speaking to the jury has not changed: some arguments work, others do not, and jurors do not behave differently simply because technology has arrived. What could change is the work of those who gather the material to be turned into defense arguments: fewer people might be needed, or tools capable of reaching information more directly and quickly might suffice.
On the risk that clients overestimate their own legal abilities thanks to AI, the lawyer responds with irony: he maintains that almost all of his clients consider themselves more expert in law than he is, and that this is precisely what constitutes his specialty. The joke contains no data, but it signals that the relationship between lawyer and client remains central.
What is missing to verify the thesis
The statements gathered from the source are forecasts and personal considerations, not the results of a study. No specific tools, reduction times for proceedings, saved costs, or concrete cases in which AI has already produced an acceleration are indicated. It therefore remains to be verified, with measurable data, whether the adoption of these systems really reduces procedural steps and changes the number of cases argued in court.
