As a litigator at [www.tamarilaw.com]Tamari Law Group in Chicago, I’ve had a front-row seat to the way technology is changing our profession. Over decades of practice, I’ve handled complex business torts, pharmaceutical liability, negligence, defamation, and breach-of-contract cases. Today, our firm is also the originating law firm for [www.legalintakeauthority.com]Legal Intake Authority, LLC, a company created to help firms strengthen their client intake systems.
Across each of these roles, I’ve watched artificial intelligence move from theoretical promise to operational reality. In 2025, AI is no longer a novelty. It is present in the way we conduct legal research, how we manage intake, and how firms respond to clients. But AI raises questions we must address if we want it to elevate our standards rather than undermine them.
The State of Play
The numbers are instructive. According to the American Bar Association, larger firms are moving quickly: nearly 40% of firms with more than 50 lawyers now use generative AI in some part of their practice, compared to roughly 20% of smaller practices. On the individual level, about 31% of lawyers report using AI themselves. The most common tasks? Drafting correspondence, brainstorming strategy, and conducting preliminary research.
Reliability will continue to be one of the biggest tests for AI in law. Errors such as misquoting cases or misstating rules may not just be technical glitches — they could directly threaten the integrity of justice. That’s why building trustworthy AI is so essential.
Clients expect faster responses, but they also expect accuracy. Balancing those expectations is one of the central challenges of this moment.
Opportunities And Friction
AI’s potential is undeniable. Reuters has reported that firms using AI can cut response times from hours to minutes. Speed matters as nearly 80% of potential clients may hire the first lawyer who calls them back.
Legal Intake Authority focuses on this precise problem. Potential client intake is where opportunities are won or lost. If matter history, documentation, or deadlines aren’t captured accurately on day one, the entire case can suffer. That’s why we feel that our firm’s collaboration with the[www.legalintakeauthority,com] Legal Intake Authority combines AI’s efficiency with structured human review, so that every inquiry is filtered, documented, and prepared for attorney evaluation.
This approach doesn’t replace lawyers. It gives them the freedom to focus on what they do best – evaluate, argue, persuade, and advocate.
What Comes Next
Looking ahead, I believe hybrid workflows will become the norm: AI may draft, but humans will verify. Intake will be assisted by technology, but final qualification will always rest with attorneys.
Regulation is already catching up. Bar associations and courts are issuing clearer guidance on confidentiality, disclosure, and ethical safeguards. Clients, too, are more aware of technology’s role and expect transparency in how it is used.
What will set firms apart is not simply adopting AI, but doing so responsibly. The differentiator will be accuracy, speed, and trust. That’s as true at Tamari Law Group as it is in the broader industry.
My view is that when firms improve intake and verification, everything downstream improves thereby instilling confidence in the justice system.
AI is here. The question is not whether we use it, but how. At Tamari Law Group, we continue to fight complex cases with the same precision and advocacy that built our reputation. At Legal Intake Authority, clear systems are designed to keep intake strong.
If we treat AI as a partner—never a shortcut—we can move from novelty to excellence.
