The legal tech world is gushing over Clio’s announcement last week as if the AI landscape just changed forever. Maybe. But anytime people gush, I get a little skeptical. I thought about this in light of the Thomson Reuters announcement this week of a a new partnership with DeepJudge to marry AI tools over both internal firm data and external data.

As I previously discussed, Clio offered the blockbuster announcement that its AI tools would now work not only on the internal data of a firm but also on external data like cases and statutes. Clio’s approach essentially lets customers use one vendor for its AI needs since that vendor can supply the tools for use with internal and external data.

This all under one roof one stop concept has everyone gushing as if the world has completely changed and firms will flock to Clio.

Indeed, it sounds simpler than having to vet and select several vendors. Or cast your fate with vendors with partnerships that could come undone. Or face the decision-making paralysis when you have two vendors having to decide anything, potentially impairing creativity and nimbleness.

But I always get suspicious when everyone seems to conclude that a tech development has changed the world right now and forever more. As Roy Amara famously said: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” And right now, the Clio announcement is less than a week old. It might be a tad bit early to declare game over.

The TR Announcement

According to the TR press release, DeepJudge, founded by former Google AI researchers, enables professionals to use AI tools and prompts across internal knowledge bases. Again, according to the press release, “by integrating DeepJudge’s AI knowledge platform with CoCounsel Legal, Thomson Reuters will give legal teams a 360-degree view that unifies internal firm know-how and exclusive Thomson Reuters content… This foundation enables AI agents to plan and execute multi-step legal tasks, helping professionals automate components of end-to-end workflows with the governance they require.”

This is yet another attempt at enabling lawyers and legal professionals to use AI not only on external data like cases and statutes, but also on internal data to get the full use. Says Paulina Grnarova, CEO and co-founder of DeepJudge, “What sets firms apart is how they leverage their unique assets—their expertise and the know-how and work product derived from it.”

Sound familiar?

The Hype May Be a Bit Premature

What Grnarova says is true, which is why so many providers are looking for a way to do just this. For example, earlier this year, Harvey and LexisNexis announced a partnership to try to do something similar: they’re using this partnership arrangement to apply the LexisNexis substantial AI tools to external data and Harvey customers’ internal data as well. The TR-DeepJudge relationship attempts a similar integration.

Those today gushing over what Clio has done would say what vendors TR and LexisNexis have done is now sophomoric. It reminds me of all those who keep declaring the billable hour dead, soon to be replaced by alternative billing models. Maybe someday it will be. But we’ve written that obituary more than once.

So, I wonder whether it might be a little quick to conclude that what TR and LN are doing is really not all that significant.

If your needs can be met by using tools offered through the partnership model from by LN and now TR, there’s not necessarily a need to change horses just because the world believes Clio has left everyone else in the dust. Especially a little over a week after the announcement. Just as there’s no reason to reflexively leave the Clio stable because TR has entered into this partnership. The key is not what all the pundits of the world are saying, it’s whether your needs are being met in the best way possible.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

There’s another issue at play here too. Like the tech curmudgeon, Cory Doctorow, I’m always suspicious when one competitor gets too much market power and when it ties customers to it because it’s too difficult to go someplace else. Clio may be great today, but it got there because it was driven to be great by competitive forces.

If too many customers sign up with Clio, there is a risk that when the competitive edge is gone, decreased services, increased prices, and more onerous service terms will surface. So, it’s good to have competition, and as a customer, you need to consider the impact if Clio gets too much market power and the risk it could pose if you sign up.

Certainly, there are advantages to using one vendor for everything. But once you sign up with the one vendor, the ability to leave that vendor should services decline or prices increase is constrained. As I wrote last week, it would require you to replace that one vendor with several others to get the same level of service. A headache that might tempt you to stay with the one when you would otherwise be nimbler and more flexible.

And in a time of change where new AI developments are announced every day, being nimble may be even more important than ever for customers. The ability to pick and choose vendors for tasks enables you to pick the best one for the tasks and then flock to another one if and when a new tool is offered.

One More Thing

There’s another issue when pundits rush to judgment about a new product or innovation before it’s actually tested out in the field and the hype is proven.

It’s a sad fact too many vendors promote products that don’t do everything that’s promised or products that don’t yet exist. Talk to any law firm IT department and you will find that this happens quite often. They pay for X but never get X. So it’s good to be cautious for a bit before crowning Clio the sweepstakes winner.

I was talking to Debbie Foster, CEO of Affinity Consulting, which frequently advises law firms on technology and its use, recently. She told me, “It’s really easy to get up on stage and show a lot of cool things a set of products can do. It’s another thing to walk into a conference room full of lawyers and get asked hard questions about the tools and what they can and cannot do.” That proof is in the pudding: concluding a product is revolutionary before it’s put to the real-world testing is premature.

Write Drunk but Edit Sober

Don’t get me wrong. The Clio announcements are significant and should be applauded. They just need to be viewed through a sobriety lens. Just because everyone jumps on the team Clio bus doesn’t mean it’s right for you. In fact, I heard several lawyers at Clio express some reluctance to sign on to an all-powerful Clio.

The old adage: write drunk but edit sober applies here. Too many of those writing about Clio right now are a little drunk with the Clio booze right now. They need to sober up.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post Hold The Gushing: The Clio AI Announcement Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Game Over appeared first on Above the Law.