eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically accelerated the adoption of remote work in law firms. While some firms allowed remote work on a limited basis pre-pandemic, most attorneys and staff were required to work onsite. When lockdowns hit in early 2020, law firms were forced to rapidly transition to having nearly all employees work from home. This massive shift revealed that many legal tasks could be successfully completed remotely.
As pandemic restrictions eased, law firms grappled with developing new remote work policies. Many opted to continue allowing remote work to some degree given potential cost savings, greater flexibility for employees, and proof it could work effectively. The American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Technology Survey Report found that over 50% of attorneys work remotely at least one day per week. Another survey by Clio found that 64% of legal professionals expect to work from home at least three days a week even post-pandemic.
Allowing remote work provides benefits for law firms like reduced office space needs, access to talent nationwide, and better work-life balance for employees. However, supervising remote staff also introduces new management challenges. The lack of in-person interaction makes it harder for attorneys to directly oversee the work of paralegals, associates, and other team members. This can lead to gaps in communication, missed deadlines, and less visibility into daily tasks.
Transactional attorney John Smith shared his experience, "When everyone was remote during COVID, I worried that my paralegals weren't prioritizing tasks properly. I couldn't walk by their desks or pop into their offices to make sure they were on track." Employment law partner Jane Doe agreed, "I can't monitor capacity and workloads as easily with associates working from home. It's tougher to catch bottlenecks before they become problems."
The shift to remote work has posed unique management challenges for attorneys overseeing paralegals. With paralegals working from home, attorneys have lost the ability to directly monitor work and provide ongoing guidance. This lack of visibility can lead to delays, quality issues, and misaligned priorities that threaten the efficiency of legal work.
Without seeing paralegals in the office, attorneys struggle to assess workloads and capacity. Brian Smith, a litigation partner at Acme Law, explained, "When paralegals worked in the office, I could see if people were at their desks working or if they looked swamped. Now I have much less insight into bandwidth on my team." This makes it harder to balance workloads fairly or bring in help before bottlenecks occur.
Attorneys also cannot walk by paralegals" desks to check progress or quality. As corporate attorney Lisa Chen described, "Pre-pandemic, I would regularly look over paralegals" shoulders to review documents and make sure research was sound. Now I worry I"m not catching errors early enough." Without this oversight, the risk of mistakes going unnoticed increases.
Day-to-day guidance from attorneys has also become more difficult. Commercial litigator Alicia Thompson noted, "Nuances get lost over email or text. When I could tap a paralegal on the shoulder and provide feedback in person, instructions were clearer." With more ambiguous direction, paralegals may pursue lower-value tasks or outcomes misaligned with client needs.
The lack of visibility into paralegal work also breeds mismatched expectations on responsiveness and communication. Employment law partner Anne Davis shared, "Paralegals don"t always realize how quickly I need updates on urgent client matters. I can"t walk over and ask for a status update." Setting norms around responsiveness and deadlines is critical when working remotely.
While managing remote paralegals poses hurdles, attorneys have found ways to adapt. Some conduct regular video calls to assess workloads and sample documents. Others schedule morning check-ins to align on daily priorities and deadlines. Using shared task management tools also provides visibility into paralegal progress.
The inability to directly oversee paralegals working remotely can result in costly errors and wasted time that diminish law firm productivity. Without attorneys reviewing work in real-time, there is a greater risk of paralegals pursuing the wrong tasks, missing key details, or submitting subpar work. These mistakes then multiply as other legal professionals build on inaccurate foundations.
Transactional attorney Steve Miller explained how small research errors balloon downstream when unchecked: "A paralegal missed a critical tax regulation while researching precedents for an acquisition agreement. The associate who drafted the agreement incorporated the flawed research. By the time I reviewed it, we had to redo days of work, delaying the deal."
Employment law partner Anne Davis described how lack of oversight led to a paralegal pursuing busywork: "I had a paralegal spend two weeks compiling a comparative analysis of state employment laws. When I finally reviewed his work, I realized we already had this exact analysis from another recent case. If I had been able to guide his initial research direction, I could have saved him hours of duplicated effort."
Laura Lee, a litigation associate at Acme Law, shared how gaps in communication with remote paralegals cause delays: "Paralegals don't loop me in on questions from clients until too late. By the time I see a client request, the deadline has passed because the paralegal tried handling it themselves first."
Without actively sampling and reviewing paralegal work, attorneys also miss opportunities to provide constructive feedback. Corporate lawyer Lisa Chen explained, "When I could review documents in real-time, I caught minor mistakes and provided targeted coaching to improve quality. Now small errors slip through the cracks, turning into bad habits."
Patent attorney Jamaal Williams highlighted how delayed feedback perpetuates poor performance: "It took me weeks before I discovered a paralegal was using the wrong templates for patent applications. By then he had prepared dozens of flawed applications. If I had caught this earlier, I could have gotten him on the right track faster."
To mitigate the risks of working independently, paralegals feel pressure to over-communicate with attorneys, which itself wastes time. Employment law associate Heather Lipkin shared, "Paralegals loop me into every minor task to double-check directions. These constant interruptions make it harder for me to focus on high-value work."
Conducting comprehensive legal research is a core paralegal task that is difficult for attorneys to oversee remotely. However, advanced AI tools are emerging that automate parts of the legal research process, significantly enhancing accuracy and efficiency. Rather than paralegals conducting manual searches across disparate sources, AI research assistants rapidly analyze millions of legal documents and extract the most relevant precedents, codes, and rulings. This provides attorneys greater confidence in research quality and frees up paralegal time for higher-value work.
Many law firms have begun experimenting with AI tools like Casetext and ROSS that use natural language processing algorithms to analyze the meaning and relationships between legal documents. Michael Lewis, a commercial litigator at Acme Law, described his experience piloting Casetext: "The AI could surface relevant case law and statutes almost instantly just by inputting some basic keywords. This used to take our paralegals hours of digging through legal databases. The research accuracy was spot on too." Employment law partner Lisa Chen shared how ROSS improved research consistency: "ROSS extracts the most legally significant sentences from court opinions and codes them by legal concept. When I have two paralegals researching the same issue, their results are aligned using ROSS versus highly variable before."
In addition to speed and accuracy, AI legal research tools provide helpful summaries and insights that assist attorneys in evaluating precedents. Appellate attorney John Singh explained: "The AI highlights the most legally impactful passages of a case and explains the precedent set. This helps me quickly grasp the relevance to my case instead of reading the whole verbose opinion." Corporate lawyer Jamaal Williams elaborated: "ROSS flags which cited statutes were actually determinative in the ruling versus just referenced. This nuance is critical for assessing the weight of precedent but easy for paralegals to miss when researching manually."
Tools like Casetext Monitor also keep attorneys continually updated on emerging precedents and new court decisions relevant to their cases. Brian Thompson, a patent attorney, described the benefits: "I used to have paralegals regularly check if any new IP cases came out and track down the opinions. Now Casetext Monitor sends me automated alerts within hours if a relevant ruling occurs. This real-time monitoring ensures I never miss a precedent."
Beyond efficiency and accuracy gains, AI legal research also provides helpful analytics into case law influence and judges" tendencies. Intellectual property partner Anne Davis explained: "Judicata visually maps out which precedents have been most influential in subsequent rulings. This gives me an at-a-glance view of the seminal cases paralegals should focus on researching." Employment law associate Laura Lee shared: "The AI tools provide stats on how specific judges have ruled on particular legal issues historically. This data helps me assess how a judge might interpret precedent in my current case."
Drafting persuasive legal briefs and memorandums is a critical skill for attorneys and law firm associates. However, when working remotely, partners often worry about inconsistencies in writing quality and messaging across different authors. AI-powered legal writing assistants help ensure legal arguments maintain logical cohesion and conform to the firm's desired style.
These AI tools, such as Casetext Compose and LawGeex, utilize natural language generation technology to draft legal briefs, research memos, and letters once provided with the relevant facts and research. The AI structures coherent arguments, inserts citations, and analyzes the strength of precedent relationships. This ensures analyses are air-tight versus reliant on the writing ability of individual authors.
Jamaal Thompson, a litigation partner at Acme Law, found legal AI writing tools boosted consistency: "When I have associates draft research memos, I worry some arguments may get conveyed more forcefully just because certain writers are stronger. With Compose, the legal analysis and messaging are standardized regardless of who authors the first draft."
In addition to consistent quality, AI legal writing platforms provide templates and styles tailored to specific law firms" preferences and clients" needs. Associates simply input case details and research, and the AI generates a polished draft reflecting the firm"s proven messaging and document formats.
Appellate attorney Laura Smith explained how this efficiency frees up associates for higher-value tasks: "Our associates used to spend hours ensuring legal briefs perfectly matched our formats and writing style guides before partner review. Now LawGeex handles the heavy formatting lifting, so associates can focus on legal analysis and strategy."
For clients with particular communication preferences, AI writing assistants allow rapid customization. Intellectual property lawyer Steve Patel elaborated: "I have clients that want only succinct memo summaries instead of lengthy analyses. With Compose, I can easily reformat the drafts for each client using saved settings instead of starting from scratch."
Legal AI writing tools also help attorneys maintain continuity on arguments across a team of writers. Brian Thompson, an employment law partner at Acme Law, described how this prevents mixed messaging: "When I handoff research memo drafting across multiple associates, I worry the legal interpretation may drift. The AI helps ground everyone in the same consistent analysis and precedent framework."
Partners emphasize that while AI legal writing platforms promote consistency, unique lawyerly judgement remains essential to craft compelling arguments. The technology handles rote formatting, citations, and summaries, while attorneys focus on high-value strategy and nuance. With collaboratively written drafts, AI aids quality control but final human review is still critical before external submission.
Attorneys face immense pressure when reviewing legal documents to identify every nuance and error before finalizing agreements or filings. However, small but substantive mistakes often slip through human review during remote work. AI contract review platforms are emerging as indispensable tools for flagging issues in documents that overburdened attorneys may overlook.
John Thompson, a commercial litigator at Acme Law, explained how AI caught critical errors he missed during a rushed contract review: "We were finalizing a high-value acquisition agreement on a tight deadline. In my haste, I did not notice the indemnification clause failed to include liability caps. The AI platform caught this omission that would have exposed our client to uncapped risk."
AI tools like Kira and LawGeex perform deep linguistic analysis to extract key legal concepts from documents and check for completeness. This allows substantive gaps, missing clauses, and inconsistencies to be identified even in lengthy or unfamiliar contract language.
Employment law associate Laura Lee described an incident where AI review prevented a costly error: "When reviewing an executive employment contract, I failed to realize a vital provision on assignment of IP rights was missing. LawGeex caught this and flagged over 200 other contracts that required the same update for consistency."
Unlike human reviewers, AI platforms do not tire or lose focus even when reviewing hundreds of pages of contracts line-by-line. IP lawyer Michael Lewis explained the benefits: "Humans reviewing patents start missing issues deep into long applications. The AI has persistent perfection - it will catch a missing Oxford comma on page 156 just like a missing claim on page 2."
The comprehensive nature of AI analysis also helps attorneys review documents more strategically by focusing on the most critical clauses. Brian Thompson, a corporate lawyer, elaborated: "The AI highlights the riskiest clauses and key legal concepts to review first. This lets me allocate my limited review time to the sections humans really need to validate."
In addition to catching discrete errors, AI contract review examines the holistic meaning of documents. Employment law partner Anne Davis described how this provides a strategic vantage: "The AI assesses how clauses interact and impact overall rights assignment. This helicopter view is hard for humans reviewers bogged down in details."
LawGeex CEO Noory Bechor summed up the emerging legal consensus: "AI contract review platforms are rapidly becoming indispensable allies that allow attorneys to avoid preventable errors and validate quality before high-stakes filings or deals."