TLDR: The rapid adoption of generative AI is reshaping the legal landscape, prompting firms like Barnes & Thornburg to develop cautious yet progressive policies. Key challenges include ethical considerations, client confidentiality, and evolving billing practices, as highlighted by Nick Sarokhanian, Chair of Barnes & Thornburg’s AI Practice. The legal community anticipates a future marked by new forms of AI-related litigation, emphasizing the enduring value of human legal judgment amidst technological advancements.
The sweeping rise of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) is fundamentally transforming the professional world, with the legal sector experiencing particularly nuanced implications. Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, writing for DataDrivenInvestor in August 2025, explores these shifts, featuring insights from Nick Sarokhanian, Chair of the AI Practice at Barnes & Thornburg.
Barnes & Thornburg, a firm with a multidisciplinary AI practice comprising over 70 attorneys across the U.S., has taken a deliberate approach to Gen AI adoption. Sarokhanian, a commercial litigator with a background in computer science, emphasizes the nearly limitless use cases of generative AI and the mirroring complexity of its legal implications. The firm has moved from interim guidance to a comprehensive, ‘moderate but open’ policy. A cornerstone of this policy is a whitelist of vetted Gen AI tools, approved from an information security standpoint, coupled with an uncompromising commitment to client consent. Explicit written consent is mandatory before any attorney or staff member can utilize Gen AI tools for client-related work.
One of the most intriguing implications of Gen AI in law involves billing practices. The American Bar Association (ABA) maintains a clear stance: if Gen AI enables a task to be completed in one hour instead of ten, only one hour should be billed. Sarokhanian views this not merely as a challenge but as an opportunity, stating, ‘It forces us to reevaluate how we deliver value. Our hope is that by handling lower-value work faster, we can focus more time on strategic, high-value advice.’ This shift encourages firms to prioritize high-value counsel over time-consuming, lower-value tasks.
Despite the buzz around automation, Sarokhanian makes a crucial distinction regarding the role of human judgment. He asserts, ‘Our judgment is what differentiates us as lawyers.’ While AI may assist in drafting initial documents, it is the ‘legal intuition — the seasoned understanding of risk, precedent, and context — that still makes our work valuable.’ This highlights that AI is seen as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement for human legal expertise.
Also Read:
- Australian Legal Sector Navigates AI’s Impact on Governance and Data Privacy
- California Courts Implement Comprehensive Generative AI Policies
Looking ahead, Sarokhanian anticipates two major trajectories within the next two to three years. Firstly, a significant increase in litigation directly tied to Gen AI tools. While current legal disputes often revolve around copyright and intellectual property issues, future cases are expected to center on failed AI implementations, breached contracts, or negligent deployment of AI. For law firms and legal professionals still hesitant about integrating AI, Sarokhanian offers pragmatic advice: ‘start small, start safe — but start now. You’ll be surprised what it can do. But more importantly, you’ll be better prepared for what’s coming.’ Ultimately, the legal implications of Gen AI extend beyond mere compliance or cost-savings; they are about fostering responsibility and shaping the future of the legal profession itself.
