Criminal Law Library BlogDavid G. Badertscher
“Every generation of legal researchers inherits new tools. Their enduring responsibility is to learn how to use them wisely.”
Introduction
Articles Tagged with Artificial Intelligence
Overview of Income Polarization Redux: NYC’s Wage Gains are (Again) Flowing to the Top
Source: Mohamed Obaidy, Associate Director, Economic Policy Team, Center for New York City Affairs (CNYCA), Income Polarization Redux: NYC’s Wage Gains Are (Again) Flowing to the Top (2026).
Introduction
In Income Polarization Redux: NYC’s Wage Gains Are (Again) Flowing to the Top, Mohamed Obaidy examines recent wage, employment, and productivity trends in New York City and concludes that economic gains are becoming increasingly concentrated among higher-income workers and higher-paying industries. While New York City’s economy continues to grow and workers are becoming more productive, the benefits of that growth are not being distributed evenly across the workforce.
Kilpatrick Launches AI Lab: A Glimpse into the Future of Legal Innovation
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.
Your Conversations With AI May Not be as Private as You Think: An Overview
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.
Interpretability and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG): How They are Reshaping AI Legal Research
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
AI in Criminal Justice: Principles and Practice
As artificial intelligence rapidly enters the criminal justice system (shaping everything from policing strategies to judicial decision-making) the need for clear guidance has become increasingly urgent. Two recent publications from the Council on Criminal Justice provide a timely and authoritative response:
- Principles for the Use of AI in Criminal Justice
https://counciloncj.org/principles-for-the-use-of-ai-in-criminal-justice/ - Assessing AI for Criminal Justice: A User Decision Framework
https://counciloncj.org/assessing-ai-for-criminal-justice-a-user-decision-framework/
Why Lawyers (And Law Librarians) Should Care About Metaphysics
Metaphysics is often described as the branch of philosophy that asks the most fundamental question of all: what is real? It explores the nature of existence, identity, causation, and the structure of reality itself. While this may sound abstract, metaphysics is far from remote. In practice, it quietly shapes the assumptions underlying every legal system and every act of legal research.
From the time of Aristotle and Plato, metaphysics has served as the foundation of traditional philosophy. It provides the conceptual framework within which other fields, knowledge, reasoning, and ethics, operate. In law, that framework is not theoretical; it is embedded in doctrine, interpretation, and everyday practice.
Consider a few familiar legal questions:
Overview: ABA Legal Tech Newsletter (March 25, 2027)
The March 25, 2026 edition of the ABA Legal Tech Newsletter arrives at a pivotal moment for the legal profession, coinciding with the opening of ABA TECHSHOW 2026, the American Bar Association’s flagship legal technology conference. The newsletter reflects a profession that has moved decisively beyond experimentation with technology and into a phase of strategic integration, governance, and long-term transformation.
1. From AI Adoption to AI Maturity
A central theme is the profession’s rapid transition from initial adoption of artificial intelligence to operational mastery. Over the past year, AI has become embedded in daily legal workflows—impacting research, drafting, case management, and client service. The newsletter emphasizes that the key challenge is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to manage it responsibly, including training, oversight, and measurable value.
From Capability to Integration: A Lawyer’s View of AI’s Next Phase
A recent practitioner commentary offers a confident assessment of the current state of large language models (LLMs) in legal practice, arguing that the primary barriers to adoption are no longer questions of intelligence or reliability but rather issues of infrastructure and workflow integration. Writing from the perspective of a lawyer who uses advanced models daily, the author contends that modern systems have already reached a level of practical competence sufficient for much of routine legal work, and that the profession’s hesitation reflects outdated assumptions about hallucinations and model limitations.
Central to the argument is the claim that hallucinations, once the dominant concern surrounding generative AI, have largely receded as a meaningful obstacle. According to the author’s experience, newer models rarely produce fabricated information, and overall error rates compare favorably with those of competent junior associates. This view reflects a broader shift in perception: rather than treating LLMs as experimental tools requiring constant skepticism, the author frames them as increasingly dependable collaborators capable of supporting substantive legal tasks.
The post also challenges prevailing narratives about the intellectual difficulty of legal work. While acknowledging that certain cases demand deep expertise, the author suggests that the majority of legal tasks rely on skills such as careful reasoning, synthesis of precedent, structured writing, and research , areas where modern LLMs already excel. By reframing legal practice as process-driven rather than exclusively intellectually rarefied, the commentary positions AI as well aligned with the day-to-day realities of the profession.
Better than the Real Thing? Promises and Perils of Synthetic Data: An Overview of Professor Peter Lee’s Essay Published in VERDICT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Professor Peter Lee’s VERDICT essay argues that synthetic data may revolutionize AI development by providing scalable, legally safer training material. Yet he warns that artificial datasets introduce new risks such as model collapse, bias, and misuse that demand proactive legal oversight. Rather than replacing existing regulatory debates, synthetic data transforms them, requiring courts, policymakers, and information professionals to rethink how innovation, privacy, and intellectual property intersect in the AI era