Hi Joseph! A very insightful read. I think it's a very interesting take, but there's been a trend among law firms to build out their AI infrastructure to replace third-party vendors such as A&O Shearman. In fact, A&O Shearman's tools are so good that they are selling them to earn another source of revenue. Maybe Kirkland's case could be different. I would ask you to take a read of this perspective, which highlights that the $500 million raise is fundamentally a defensive move and emphasizes a larger problem: the judgment of senior partners cannot be encoded into proprietary legal infrastructure.
I write a blog titled "The LegalTech Thesis" where I track startups, trends, and opportunities in the space. I wrote a piece on the three white spaces to watch for in LegalTech in 2026. Would love to know your thoughts!
The point about not training the next generation of partners is compelling but I wonder how much they care if they think they can be best in class and let other firms train for them.
It's easy for me to see how the middle tier dissolves as the top tier becomes highly efficient. Then the bottom tier has to become a lean boutique firm to compete (lawyer on fiverr).
“People don’t hire these firms because they need brilliant memos. They hire these firms to convert work product into reliance.”
is so good. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend a while back. And I think the highest level of persuasion is not convincing people with information, but creating enough trust that your judgment itself becomes the product.
At a certain level, people are no longer paying for intelligence alone.
They’re paying for certainty and the emotional relief of believing that “These people understand something I don’t.”
By the way Joseph, I sent you a DM about an idea you might find intriguing
This was a great read!
Loved reading this!
Hi Joseph! A very insightful read. I think it's a very interesting take, but there's been a trend among law firms to build out their AI infrastructure to replace third-party vendors such as A&O Shearman. In fact, A&O Shearman's tools are so good that they are selling them to earn another source of revenue. Maybe Kirkland's case could be different. I would ask you to take a read of this perspective, which highlights that the $500 million raise is fundamentally a defensive move and emphasizes a larger problem: the judgment of senior partners cannot be encoded into proprietary legal infrastructure.
https://thebrainyacts.beehiiv.com/p/286-beyond-the-500-million
I write a blog titled "The LegalTech Thesis" where I track startups, trends, and opportunities in the space. I wrote a piece on the three white spaces to watch for in LegalTech in 2026. Would love to know your thoughts!
https://harshithviswanath.substack.com/p/three-legaltech-whitespace-plays
The point about not training the next generation of partners is compelling but I wonder how much they care if they think they can be best in class and let other firms train for them.
It's easy for me to see how the middle tier dissolves as the top tier becomes highly efficient. Then the bottom tier has to become a lean boutique firm to compete (lawyer on fiverr).
The statement you made,
“People don’t hire these firms because they need brilliant memos. They hire these firms to convert work product into reliance.”
is so good. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend a while back. And I think the highest level of persuasion is not convincing people with information, but creating enough trust that your judgment itself becomes the product.
At a certain level, people are no longer paying for intelligence alone.
They’re paying for certainty and the emotional relief of believing that “These people understand something I don’t.”
By the way Joseph, I sent you a DM about an idea you might find intriguing