At this year's RelFest, an intriguing Legal Data Intelligence State of the Union unfolded like never before, adopting the format of a courtroom trial to fervently debate whether innovation in legal AI primarily stems from law firms or direct clients. David Horrigan, Relativity's discovery counsel and legal education director, orchestrated this novel setup, challenging traditional conference norms and engaging attendees in a judicial-style examination of AI's role in legal services.

The participants included Scott Milner from Morgan Lewis, advocating that law firms are the main drivers of AI innovation due to their extensive cross-industry experience and competitive pressures. Opposing him was Fiona Campbell of LexisNexis, adorned in her barrister's wig, who argued that in-house counsel, with their deep, data-centric insights pertinent to specific organizational needs, lead the way in AI-driven advancements.

Presiding over the session were retired S.D.N.Y. Magistrate Judge James Francis, Dr. Victoria McCloud, a former Master of the King’s Bench Division, and Judge Pamela Washington, president of the National Association of Women Judges.

The arguments unfolded with Milner emphasizing that law firms, operating under the capitalistic drive to outperform and innovate, possess a broader perspective by encountering a variety of scenarios and challenges across different clients and industries. On the other hand, Campbell presented compelling statistics showing that 58 percent of surveyed in-house counsel believed they were the ones pushing for innovation.

Adding depth to the discussion, other jurors and judges, including legal tech commentator Bob Ambrogi, highlighted historical trends and survey data indicating that clients often propel firms towards adopting new technologies. Dr. McCloud pointed out that motivation is key: firms view problems as business opportunities, whereas for corporate counsel, these issues are existential.

In the end, the decision was not straightforward. The jury, myself included, remained divided, reflecting the complex interplay between demand from clients and the innovative supply responses by law firms. Judge Washington aptly concluded with a proverb highlighting the essence of collaboration: "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

The trial, albeit structured and insightful, ended in a declared mistrial due to the jury's deadlock, underscoring the ongoing debate and the symbiotic relationship necessary between all parties involved in legal AI innovation. This unique format not only enlightened participants but also vividly demonstrated that the journey of AI in law is a collective, evolving venture, far from reaching a verdict.