Last week I attended the Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference in Fort Worth. The Bench Bar featured three days of panels with judges, trial lawyers, experts, and in-house counsel. Most of the program concerned patent litigation, but four themes ran through the sessions. These themes are food for thought for any litigator.
AI: great power with great responsibility. Judges and lawyers on several panels said the same thing: AI is meant to supplement—not replace—the lawyer. Everything it produces, including cases, quotes and propositions, must be checked and double-checked. The consequences they described went beyond mere embarrassment. Courts can award the other side its fees for responding to bad filings and, in some cases, report lawyers to the bar. One speaker observed that AI has widened the blast radius from bad lawyering. Some judges are not requiring certification for use of AI—including for tasks for outlining. It is worth reading any standing order a court may have before filing. One trial lawyer named another important risk: AI can help greatly with trial prep, but lawyers who lean on it too early may never learn the research and writing skills that makes for good lawyering in the first place.
Fewer points, better argued. A judge on an appellate panel advised raising two or three issues on appeal, not ten. A long list erodes credibility, particularly when the trial judge is respected. A trial-judge panel had similar conclusions: don’t retell the whole case at every opportunity. Don’t object without a clear basis. Jurors give time and are paid little for it. A trial lawyer added a similar note with respect to judges: the judge is in charge, even when wrong, so get your ruling, make your record and don’t bully. In sum: know your audience, and understand that restraint reads as confidence.
Simple beats clever. Be yourself. Several lawyers recommended a single theme repeated from jury selection through closing, use of plain visuals (think flipcharts, not busy slides), and an ending prepared well in advance. Demonstratives help when they are clear and easily visible, but hurt when they are performative and overdone. One trial lawyer added a point about presence: stay off your phone and don’t read from a legal pad. If the case matters enough, carry it in your head. Don’t dress or talk down to be relatable; jurors are smart and can tell when a lawyer is being fake or trying too hard. Jurors arrive knowing nothing about the case, so it is your job to make them care and tell them why it matters.
Know the court. Read the local rules carefully. Ask someone who has practiced in that court about the unwritten ones. Judges differ enormously in their attitudes toward motions, conferral and objections, among other things. Calibrate to how well the judge already knows your case.
An in-house developer had some very timely insight on AI and client information. The question is less about who sees the data than what systems touch it. For small or solo practices, this is a key insight for data hygiene. While technology will reshape the practice significantly over the coming months and years, the key is to stay humble and keep learning from those around us.
Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or interacting with this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. You should consult a qualified attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Mehaffy, PLLC disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on this blog.