Blab AI
Legal Teams Turn to Practical Guidelines as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom
On September 11, 2026, Exterro streamed a webinar titled "AI in the Courtroom: How Generative AI Is Changing the Way Legal Teams Go to Court," hosted by Doug Austin, editor of eDiscovery Today. The panel brought together Martin Tully of Redgrave LLP, Kelly Twigger of ESI Attorneys and Minerva26, and Bryant Bell, lead product marketer for eDiscovery and AI at Exterro. The session—now on demand—outlines a three‑step framework that legal departments can use to adopt generative AI safely and defensibly.
The key takeaway is that the legal industry is moving from abstract risk discussions to concrete operational plans. Rather than waiting for new regulations, firms are building guardrails that let staff use AI while protecting client data and staying compliant with civil‑procedure rules. The webinar’s three core guidelines are: (1) manage AI so people use vetted, reliable tools; (2) understand what about AI is subject to case law; and (3) apply common sense and existing legal fundamentals.
The first guideline tackles the problem of "Shadow AI"—the use of consumer‑grade chatbots such as ChatGPT or Claude without formal approval. Tully explained that banning such tools is ineffective and pushes usage further underground. He compared the situation to skate parks: "When municipalities built skate parks, it was often because there were kids skateboarding, and they were skateboarding in places where it wasn’t safe… Knowing that people were going to skate where they found attractive places to skateboard, they built skateboard parks so that now people could use the park in a safe, in a more contained, and a more controlled environment." The implication is that firms should provide approved, enterprise‑grade AI pathways and train staff on how to use them responsibly.
Bryant Bell added that legal teams must understand how vendor models process internal data. He suggested a simple diagnostic: "In your legal gen AI system, ask it if a hot dog is a sandwich. And if it can answer that question or gives you different opinions on it, then you probably need to check on whether you have a governed gen AI system or not." Bell emphasized that vendors should disclose whether their tools rely on internal data only or also draw from broader internet sources.
The second guideline focuses on the evolving legal landscape. Courts are issuing rulings on AI usage, prompt discoverability, and privilege waivers. While the webinar did not list specific decisions, it highlighted the need for legal teams to track these precedents when negotiating protective orders and conducting Rule 26 meet‑and‑confers. Understanding how AI‑generated content is treated under existing rules is essential for defensibility.
The third guideline stresses that core legal principles remain unchanged. Tully said, "AI‑generated ESI is still ESI. Relevance and proportionality still apply. The rules of privilege still apply. The rules of evidence still apply. And the ethical obligation of technical competency still applies." He also noted that hallucinations are not a new problem; they are simply failures to check work, a standard practice that has existed for centuries. Kelly Twigger echoed this by explaining the "human in the loop" concept: "If you haven't heard the term human in the loop, what that basically means is that you can use AI, but you still have to be paying attention to all the pieces. It's almost the equivalent of using someone to help you draft something, but then it's your responsibility to check everything that's in it and make sure it's valid, that it's well‑reasoned, that the cases that are cited are actually referenced."
The panelists also urged firms to anchor their AI strategy in existing practice rather than invent new rules for every software update. Tully remarked, "I always like to start with, is there a Flintstone way to address Jetsons technology? Because if there is, let's stick with what we know and apply the technology, and we don't have to constantly create new rules."
In summary, the webinar provides a practical roadmap for legal teams: establish approved AI tools and governance, stay informed about judicial rulings on AI, and apply established legal standards to AI‑generated content. The guidance is designed to reduce risk while enabling the efficiencies that generative AI can bring to litigation workflows.
The full recording is available on demand, offering a detailed discussion of how legal teams can navigate generative AI while maintaining defensibility in modern litigation. The webinar underscores that, as AI becomes operational in the courtroom, the focus must remain on clear policies, human oversight, and adherence to existing legal frameworks.
The key takeaway is that the legal industry is moving from abstract risk discussions to concrete operational plans. Rather than waiting for new regulations, firms are building guardrails that let staff use AI while protecting client data and staying compliant with civil‑procedure rules. The webinar’s three core guidelines are: (1) manage AI so people use vetted, reliable tools; (2) understand what about AI is subject to case law; and (3) apply common sense and existing legal fundamentals.
The first guideline tackles the problem of "Shadow AI"—the use of consumer‑grade chatbots such as ChatGPT or Claude without formal approval. Tully explained that banning such tools is ineffective and pushes usage further underground. He compared the situation to skate parks: "When municipalities built skate parks, it was often because there were kids skateboarding, and they were skateboarding in places where it wasn’t safe… Knowing that people were going to skate where they found attractive places to skateboard, they built skateboard parks so that now people could use the park in a safe, in a more contained, and a more controlled environment." The implication is that firms should provide approved, enterprise‑grade AI pathways and train staff on how to use them responsibly.
Bryant Bell added that legal teams must understand how vendor models process internal data. He suggested a simple diagnostic: "In your legal gen AI system, ask it if a hot dog is a sandwich. And if it can answer that question or gives you different opinions on it, then you probably need to check on whether you have a governed gen AI system or not." Bell emphasized that vendors should disclose whether their tools rely on internal data only or also draw from broader internet sources.
The second guideline focuses on the evolving legal landscape. Courts are issuing rulings on AI usage, prompt discoverability, and privilege waivers. While the webinar did not list specific decisions, it highlighted the need for legal teams to track these precedents when negotiating protective orders and conducting Rule 26 meet‑and‑confers. Understanding how AI‑generated content is treated under existing rules is essential for defensibility.
The third guideline stresses that core legal principles remain unchanged. Tully said, "AI‑generated ESI is still ESI. Relevance and proportionality still apply. The rules of privilege still apply. The rules of evidence still apply. And the ethical obligation of technical competency still applies." He also noted that hallucinations are not a new problem; they are simply failures to check work, a standard practice that has existed for centuries. Kelly Twigger echoed this by explaining the "human in the loop" concept: "If you haven't heard the term human in the loop, what that basically means is that you can use AI, but you still have to be paying attention to all the pieces. It's almost the equivalent of using someone to help you draft something, but then it's your responsibility to check everything that's in it and make sure it's valid, that it's well‑reasoned, that the cases that are cited are actually referenced."
The panelists also urged firms to anchor their AI strategy in existing practice rather than invent new rules for every software update. Tully remarked, "I always like to start with, is there a Flintstone way to address Jetsons technology? Because if there is, let's stick with what we know and apply the technology, and we don't have to constantly create new rules."
In summary, the webinar provides a practical roadmap for legal teams: establish approved AI tools and governance, stay informed about judicial rulings on AI, and apply established legal standards to AI‑generated content. The guidance is designed to reduce risk while enabling the efficiencies that generative AI can bring to litigation workflows.
The full recording is available on demand, offering a detailed discussion of how legal teams can navigate generative AI while maintaining defensibility in modern litigation. The webinar underscores that, as AI becomes operational in the courtroom, the focus must remain on clear policies, human oversight, and adherence to existing legal frameworks.
