Proactive legal networks are playing a unique role in the proliferation of the latest in artificial intelligence within the legal industry.

Generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) has been touted as a game changer for private legal practitioners and corporate legal departments alike, as the AI boom has many predicting a revolution in how lawyers work.

As the transformative era of Gen AI continues to redefine creativity, it is also igniting debates on copyright laws and ethical boundaries.

When it comes to generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), China is leading the world in both regulation formulation and judicial practice.

Even as generative AI sweeps the globe, Indian law firms have been slow to embrace it. Those that have done, though, are encountering lower costs and shorter turnaround times. But as with any new technology, it’s critical that firms move carefully. 

Ever since generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) took large parts of the world by storm last year, policymakers and regulators globally have been playing catch-up with the rapidly evolving technology that is poised to reshape existing ways of work and life.

Southeast Asian countries are taking a business-friendly approach to artificial intelligence regulation in a setback to the European Union's push for globally harmonised rules that align with its own stringent framework.

With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence heralding a new era of productivity, law firms are weighing the use of AI to improve efficiencies and cut costs at a time when economic uncertainty is dampening revenue prospects. But as the technology's inherent flaws come to light, not to mention the potential for abuse, firms need to move with caution to deal with the flip side of AI.

Large volumes of case material and tight deadlines have long been a part of legal work. But as cross-jurisdictional work balloons and firms pivot away from hourly billing, resources have never been tighter.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is unanimously the top tech trend in the legal space, particularly in because of its applicability and practicability, and Herbert Smith Freehills has been one of earliest adopters.