David Smith, a solo practitioner based in Houston, is a self-confessed technophile – but to him, AI is more than a luxury. In Smith’s practice, AI is a time-saver and strategic must-have. Smith reports saving roughly 20 hours a week using AI in his criminal defense practice. The result is 20 hours each week reclaimed and reinvested in business development and courtroom strategy.
“I’m free to actually do lawyer activities and not do the activities of [a] law clerk,” says Smith in a recent law.com video. “I am [also] able to put out my next update to potential clients or the community with my YouTube videos or my blog posts – so that I can have more revenue coming in the door.”
In terms of time savings, Smith reports seeing the most bang for his buck in the areas of research and drafting. In the podcast, Smith tells the story of a trial in which, after a late-breaking jury-charge issue surfaced, the judge gave Smith five minutes to produce a proposed instruction.
Fortunately for Smith and his client, he had his AI tool (Protégé for Lexis+ AI) ready on his laptop – as well as a printer. Within the five-minute timeframe, Smith got Protégé for Lexis+ AI to give him a jury instruction that he got admitted with almost no edits.
“I gave [Lexis+ AI] a brief synopsis of the issue . . . And I was blown away with what I was presented with,” says Smith. “I think it saved my client.”
Smith supposes that he could have objected and asked for more time (Smith even says in the podcast that he didn’t “think the judge thought [he] was going to be able to do it”) – but with AI, asking for more time was unnecessary.
“There’s those gut punches that happen, but you have to respond,” says Smith. “You can’t say, ‘Oh, judge, it’s not fair.’ You have to do everything that one can do.”
To this end, Smith frames AI use as part of his professional responsibility.
“[AI] is capable of saving time and money and being extremely effective against someone who may not be using those tools,” says Smith. “I do not feel that I would be doing a service to my clients if I ignored this.”
This isn’t just empty pro-AI rhetoric; Smith has the citations to back up his argument, specifically pointing to both Comment 8 on Rule 1.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Comment 8 on Rule 1.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Both dictate that a practicing attorney must keep up with technological developments in law practice – “including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”
Smith further points out that the Texas Rules go further than the ABA’s Model Rules do – specifically requiring proficiency in technologies such as AI.
“We’re tasked with knowing this, knowing what’s appropriate for our clients, and staying at the forefront – so we need to do that,” says Smith. “[Otherwise] it would be like turning down CLE.”
Joe Stanganelli is a writer and recovering attorney. He is managing director of content advisory Blackwood King LC.