Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
most useful prompts are variations of the same questions I have always asked myself: Does this case really stand for that proposition? What is the strongest authority against me? What language have I ignored? Is my characterization fair? What factual distinction will the other side exploit? What am I missing? AI is remarkably useful when it is asked to challenge an argument rather than flatter it. It can function as a relentless second reader. It will compare the same five cases repeatedly, examine a deposition from another angle, or test whether a factual assertion is supported by the material provided. It does not become tired, impatient, or emotionally attached to the theory of the case. But it can also be wrong. It can misstate a holding, omit limiting language, confuse one witness’s testimony with another’s, or generate a persuasive sentence unsupported by any source. That is why I never treat its output as the final answer. I return to the opinion, the transcript, the exhibit, or the filed record every time. The source controls. The lawyer decides.
elder-abuse case may turn on a series of transactions that appear innocuous when viewed separately but reveal exploitation when placed in chronological and relational context. A rideshare sexual-assault case may involve app data, account records, communications, prior incidents, corporate policies, witness testimony, and evidence of what the company knew or should have known. In both settings, critical facts can be buried in thousands of pages of documents. The plaintiff’s lawyer must do more than tell a compelling story. We must build a record that permits the court to find that story in admissible evidence. We must identify the governing legal principles without overstating them. We must preserve issues before the moment of appellate review. We must anticipate that a defendant will challenge not only our legal theory, but the credibility of our client and the reliability of our presentation.
For vulnerable clients, accuracy is not a technical exercise. It is protection.
Every pristine pincite reduces the opportunity for distraction. Every precise record citation allows the court to verify an important fact without searching through an entire exhibit. Every fair description of adverse authority strengthens the court’s confidence that the lawyer is presenting the law rather than manipulating it. Plaintiff’s lawyers do not always have the largest teams or the greatest budgets. But we can know the record better. We can understand the cases more deeply. We can make it easier for the court to trust us. Credibility remains one of the profession’s greatest equalizers.
Why This Matters in Plaintiff-Side Practice
My practice now focuses substantially on financial elder abuse and the difficult issues embedded in representing older adults and other vulnerable individuals. I have also done significant work in the rideshare sexual-assault arena. These cases involve more than complicated facts. They involve power imbalances, trauma, cognitive changes, family dynamics, fiduciary relationships, financial records, medical histories, and institutions that often have a strategic interest in questioning the plaintiff’s credibility. When a client is already vulnerable, the lawyer cannot afford to be careless. A financial
19
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs