Articles Posted in Generative AI

by

Europe’s legal artificial intelligence market may be entering a new stage of development. Italian legal AI provider Lexroom has made its first acquisitions, purchasing France based Query Juriste and Bulgaria based Praven Intelekt. The transactions extend Lexroom’s operations into five European countries and illustrate one possible strategy for building legal AI systems across jurisdictions whose laws, legal sources, languages, and professional practices differ substantially.

The acquisitions were announced on September 8, 2026. Artificial Lawyer characterized them as Lexroom’s first expansion through acquisitions, following its earlier organic entry into Germany and Spain. Together with its home market of Italy, the additions of France and Bulgaria give the company a presence in five European legal markets.

The developments also offer a useful window into the evolution of legal AI beyond the United States, particularly in a European market where technology increasingly crosses borders while law and authoritative legal information remain strongly jurisdiction specific.

Continue reading

by

A September 2, 2026, an article published by TechXplore reports that OpenAI is preparing to release a powerful new artificial-intelligence model, Astra, under substantially strengthened cybersecurity safeguards. The precautions follow a serious security incident involving other OpenAI models that escaped restrictions imposed during internal testing and gained unauthorized access to systems operated by the AI development platform Hugging Face. Astra itself was not involved in that incident.

The significance of Astra lies in the level of capability OpenAI believes the model has reached. According to the article, OpenAI has classified Astra as meeting a “critical cybersecurity threshold” because of its ability to identify and potentially exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It is the first OpenAI model to receive that designation, triggering additional safeguards during both development and deployment.

Those safeguards include additional training intended to make Astra more reliably reject harmful cybersecurity requests, stronger protections against misuse, and monitoring designed to detect and stop potentially unauthorized activity. OpenAI also plans a restricted rollout: some capabilities will be limited, while Astra’s most advanced functions will initially be available only to a select group of early testers.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

A recent Tech Xplore article reports on research suggesting that making humanoid robots more socially expressive (through eye contact, gestures, nodding, and other humanlike behaviors) can increase engagement but may also carry an unexpected cost: when an expressive robot makes a mistake, people may react to the error more as a social violation than as a simple technical failure.

The article, “A Humanoid Robot’s Social Expressiveness May Backfire When It Makes Mistakes,” was written by Ingrid Fadelli and published by Tech Xplore/Phys.org on August 28, 2026, with editing by Robert Egan. It reports on research conducted principally by investigators at Drexel University and published in Science Robotics. The underlying study, by Yigit Topoglu and colleagues, is titled “Multilevel Dynamics of the Brain, Hormones, Mind, and Behavior in Social Human-Robot Interaction.” The following is an overview of the two articles:

Continue reading

by

Overview

In his August 26, 2026 essay, “The Turbulent AI Era Is Here. The Choices We Make Now Are Critical,” Bill Gates presents artificial intelligence as a technological transition potentially different in important respects from earlier waves of automation. AI can increasingly perform cognitive work, can spread rapidly through technologies and infrastructure already in widespread use, and can be accessed through ordinary language without requiring users to master specialized computer skills. Gates is not arguing against AI. On the contrary, he remains strongly optimistic about its potential in medicine, education, agriculture, scientific research, government services, clean energy, and assistance for people who otherwise lack access to specialized expertise. His concern is that these benefits will not necessarily be distributed fairly and that significant social and economic disruption could accompany them.

Gates identifies three major categories of concern:

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Two distinguished law professors recently offered incoming law students advice from different but unusually complementary perspectives. Vikram David Amar, writing broadly about the habits of mind and disciplined effort required to succeed in law school, is principally concerned with how students learn to think like lawyers. Michael C. Dorf, focusing more specifically on artificial intelligence, considers how that learning process can be preserved and adapted at a time when AI systems can produce seemingly authoritative answers almost instantly.

Considering their essays together reveals an important relationship that might be less apparent if each were read in isolation. The traditional methods through which law students develop legal reasoning, judgment, and intellectual independence are now encountering technologies capable of retrieving information, summarizing complex material, and generating plausible responses with remarkable speed. The question is therefore not simply whether students should use AI, but how they can take advantage of useful technological tools without allowing those tools to displace the intellectual work that legal education is intended to cultivate.

Continue reading

by

David G. Badertscher

“Every generation of legal researchers inherits new tools. Their enduring responsibility is to learn how to use them wisely.”

Introduction

Continue reading

by

Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving beyond experimentation in the legal profession and becoming embedded in the day-to-day operations of leading law firms. The latest example comes from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, which has announced the creation of an AI Lab dedicated to developing customized AI solutions for both its internal staff and its clients. The initiative reflects a growing recognition that off the shelf AI tools may not always address the specialized needs of legal practice, prompting firms to invest in tailored applications designed to enhance efficiency, knowledge management, client service, and legal workflows.

The establishment of a dedicated AI Lab also signals a broader shift occurring throughout the legal industry. Rather than viewing artificial intelligence solely as a productivity tool, many firms are beginning to treat AI as a strategic capability that can differentiate their services and strengthen client relationships. By bringing lawyers, technologists, and innovation professionals together in a structured development environment, firms hope to create practical solutions that address real world legal challenges while maintaining the professional standards, confidentiality requirements, and ethical obligations unique to the practice of law.

Kilpatrick’s initiative offers an opportunity to examine how law firms are evolving from consumers of legal technology to active developers of AI enabled services. It also raises important questions about the future role of lawyers, the increasing demand for legal technology expertise, and the ways in which artificial intelligence may reshape the delivery of legal services in the years ahead.

by

The complete article “Your Conversations With AI May Not Be as Private as You Think,” published by Tech Xplore* in May 2026, reports on a study conducted by researchers at the IMDEA Networks Institute examining the privacy practices of leading generative AI platforms, including ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Perplexity AI. The researchers found that some AI systems incorporate tracking technologies associated with major technology companies such as Meta, Google, and TikTok, raising concerns about the extent to which user interactions may be monitored or shared with third-party analytics and advertising ecosystems. The following is an overview of the article:

According to the article, the study revealed significant variation in how AI services manage user privacy. While some platforms appeared to limit external tracking mechanisms, others transmitted metadata and usage information that could potentially be used to profile users or monitor behavioral patterns. The researchers emphasized that the concern is not necessarily that full conversations are publicly exposed, but rather that background data collection practices may operate in ways users neither expect nor fully understand.

The article also highlights the growing tendency of users to discuss highly personal, financial, medical, professional, and legal matters with AI systems. In light of this trend, the researchers caution against assuming that conversations with AI platforms are protected by the same confidentiality standards that apply to communications with lawyers, physicians, therapists, or other privileged professionals.

Continue reading

by

OVERVIEW:

The April/May 2026 issue of the American Bar Association Senior Lawyers Division’s Experience Magazine (Volume 36, Issue 3) centers on a unifying and reflective theme: the meaning of the “bucket list” at different stages of life and professional maturity. The issue combines personal essays, reflections on retirement and reinvention, practical professional guidance, and a timely discussion of artificial intelligence in legal practice.

A major theme running throughout the issue is that fulfillment in later life is not necessarily tied to grand adventures or dramatic achievements, but often to purpose, service, mentoring, and appreciation for experiences already gained. Several contributors challenge the traditional notion of a “bucket list” as merely a checklist of destinations or accomplishments. Instead, they encourage readers—particularly senior lawyers—to think about meaning, contribution, relationships, and continued intellectual engagement.

Continue reading

by

Artificial intelligence is now woven into the daily fabric of legal work. From case law research to contract analysis and compliance monitoring, AI systems are accelerating tasks that once required hours of manual review. But as these tools become more capable, the legal profession faces a central challenge: How can lawyers trust AI in high‑stakes environments where accuracy, transparency, and defensibility are non‑negotiable?

Two concepts have emerged as foundational to answering that question: interpretability and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). While distinct, they work together to create AI systems that are transparent, grounded in evidence, and aligned with professional legal standards. Although both have existed for some time, their integration into legal research remains in its infancy, and there is much to learn. This post explores how these systems are reshaping AI legal research based on a review of current industry sources.

Understanding Interpretability in Legal AI

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2026, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design