Artificial intelligence could significantly change how lawsuits move through the American legal system, potentially reducing lengthy disputes and sending more cases to trial. Prominent New York attorney Alex Spiro believes the technology will help lawyers evaluate evidence faster and decide earlier whether to settle a case or fight it in court.
Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, discussed the future of legal work during a November 4, 2026, appearance on the technology program TBPN. He predicted that AI could eliminate some of the time-consuming work that takes place between the filing of a lawsuit and its eventual resolution.
His comments come as law firms face increasing pressure to adopt AI systems for research, document review and other routine responsibilities. New industry research suggests the technology is already changing how legal services are delivered, although questions about reliability, confidentiality and professional responsibility remain.
Alex Spiro Predicts Major Changes in Litigation
Spiro is known for representing prominent clients, including Elon Musk, Jay-Z, Alec Baldwin and former New York City Mayor Eric Adams. His work frequently involves complicated legal disputes that attract public attention and require extensive preparation.
During the interview, he explained that AI could shorten the process of evaluating evidence and identifying a case's strongest arguments. Instead of spending months reviewing documents and assessing legal risks, attorneys could potentially complete portions of that work much faster.
"I think AI will eliminate a layer of a lot of things, including my day job," Spiro said.
He suggested that faster analysis would make it easier for businesses and individuals to determine whether a dispute should be resolved through negotiation. Cases with little chance of success might settle sooner, while stronger claims could proceed more directly toward trial.
That could produce an unexpected result. Rather than reducing the number of trials, AI might encourage some clients to pursue cases they previously would have settled because of uncertainty or legal expenses.
Spiro described a future in which lawyers could compare several disputes and identify which ones deserved further litigation. He argued that clearer information might give clients more confidence when deciding whether to accept a settlement.
These predictions are not established outcomes. The technology's ability to reduce litigation costs or increase the number of trials will depend on how accurately it analyzes evidence and how courts and attorneys use its findings.
AI Is Already Changing How Lawyers Work
Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly common in legal offices, particularly for tasks involving large amounts of written information. Lawyers can use specialized systems to summarize documents, search legal authorities, organize evidence and prepare preliminary drafts.
Document review is one area where the technology could have a substantial effect. A complicated lawsuit may involve thousands of emails, contracts, messages and financial records that attorneys must examine for relevant information.
AI tools can help identify recurring names, dates and subjects across those records. They can also group similar documents and highlight material that might require closer examination by a lawyer.
Spiro said he sees particular value in using AI to organize factual material. However, he distinguished those applications from legal research systems that may produce inaccurate case references or unsupported claims.
The distinction matters because lawyers must establish not only what happened but also which laws and court decisions apply. An accurate summary of evidence does not automatically produce a sound legal argument.
Research published by Thomson Reuters in 2026 found that AI use has become widespread across professional services. Its survey of more than 1,500 professionals examined adoption in legal work, accounting, taxation, government and related industries.
The study found that organization-wide AI use had reached 40%, nearly doubling from the previous year. However, only 18% of respondents said their organizations formally measured the return on investment from AI tools.
Those findings suggest that businesses are adopting the technology faster than they are developing reliable methods to measure its results.
Law Firms Face Growing Pressure From Clients
The financial effects of AI adoption could extend beyond individual legal cases. Faster work may challenge traditional law firm billing arrangements, particularly when clients are charged according to the number of hours attorneys spend on a matter.
Some legal tasks that once required several hours may eventually be completed much faster with AI assistance. That raises questions about whether clients should continue paying similar amounts when technology reduces the time required.
According to Thomson Reuters' 2026 Future of Professionals legal report, 71% of surveyed in-house legal professionals expect outside service providers to change how they charge as AI becomes more widely used.
The report also found that 38% of law firm professionals were experiencing some degree of financial pressure to adopt AI faster. Corporate legal departments increasingly expect outside attorneys to demonstrate measurable improvements in efficiency and quality.
Despite those expectations, 62% of law firm professionals said their organizations had not changed their pricing structures in response to AI.
The difference between client expectations and law firm practices could become a source of tension. Some clients may seek fixed fees or arrangements based on the value of completed work rather than the amount of time spent.
For law firms, the challenge involves deciding how to price services while maintaining the expertise and oversight necessary for reliable legal representation. Faster document processing does not eliminate the responsibility to interpret evidence and provide sound advice.
Accuracy and Confidentiality Remain Major Concerns
Although AI can help process information quickly, legal professionals must remain alert to mistakes. Generative AI systems sometimes produce convincing statements that are inaccurate or unsupported.
In legal research, these errors can include invented court decisions, incorrect quotations or citations that do not support the arguments presented. Such mistakes can damage a client's case and expose attorneys to professional sanctions.
A January 2026 Thomson Reuters Institute report warned that inaccurate AI-generated information can create serious problems for courts, including risks to due process. The report emphasized the importance of human oversight and checking sources before relying on generated material.
The American Bar Association addressed similar concerns in its July 2024 Formal Opinion 512. The guidance explains that lawyers using generative AI must still meet their professional obligations concerning competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision and reasonable fees.
Attorneys must also protect sensitive client information when using outside technology providers. Uploading confidential records into an improperly secured system could create privacy and professional responsibility concerns.
A separate Thomson Reuters survey found that 34% of law firm professionals reported using AI tools that had not been authorized by their organizations. That practice can expose sensitive information to systems that have not undergone appropriate security reviews.
These concerns do not mean lawyers must avoid AI entirely. They indicate that firms need clear policies about which tools may be used, what information may be entered and how the resulting work must be checked.
Human Judgment Still Matters in the Courtroom
Despite his expectations for major changes in legal preparation, Spiro does not believe AI will replace the human skills involved in presenting a case to a jury.
He said his approach to courtroom advocacy has remained largely consistent for two decades. Persuasion, credibility and the ability to communicate effectively with jurors still depend heavily on a lawyer's judgment and experience.
Technology may help attorneys identify important evidence or prepare arguments more efficiently. However, it cannot guarantee that a jury will find a witness credible or accept a particular interpretation of events.
Spiro also addressed the possibility that AI could make clients overly confident about their understanding of the law. He suggested that this problem already exists among some of the clients he represents, regardless of technological developments.
Legal advice often requires assessing risks that extend beyond the wording of a statute or a court decision. Experienced attorneys must consider the strength of evidence, the costs of litigation and the potential consequences of different legal strategies.
AI may provide useful information for those decisions, but it does not remove the need for professional accountability.
Legal Education and Employment Could Change
Greater automation may also affect how new lawyers learn their profession. Junior attorneys traditionally gain experience through document review, legal research and drafting assignments under the supervision of more experienced colleagues.
If AI handles more of those assignments, law firms may need to develop new approaches to training and professional development. Young lawyers will still need to understand the underlying work before they can reliably review AI-generated results.
Thomson Reuters research found that 78% of surveyed law firm professionals believed early-career attorneys depend on mentorship to develop skills that AI may increasingly automate. The findings suggest that firms cannot treat technology adoption and employee training as separate issues.
At the same time, access to effective AI tools may influence recruitment. The research found that 24% of law firm professionals would reject a job offer if the employer did not provide professional-grade AI technology.
Those trends could change the kinds of skills law firms value. Lawyers may spend less time performing repetitive research and more time evaluating evidence, advising clients and developing legal strategies.
The long-term effects on staffing and employment remain uncertain. Faster workflows could reduce demand for some tasks while creating new responsibilities involving technology supervision, data protection and quality control.
Spiro's central prediction is that AI will make the process of moving from evidence to legal decisions more direct. Whether that produces faster settlements, more trials or lower costs will depend on how successfully law firms integrate the technology into everyday practice.
For now, the profession faces two simultaneous demands: improving efficiency through new tools while maintaining the accuracy, confidentiality and human judgment required by the legal system.