Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. Used properly, AI is permitted and increasingly encouraged under the rules of professional conduct. The American Bar Association's ethics committee has addressed generative AI in legal practice, and the core duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, and reasonable fees all apply.

In Illinois, the Supreme Court has adopted an AI policy for the courts: attorneys remain accountable for their final work product and must review AI-generated content for accuracy before it is filed. Rules and individual judges' preferences still vary by court, so Peter researches and follows the requirements of each court he appears in. The guiding principle everywhere is the same: AI supports legal judgment, it does not replace it.

Yes, without exception. Peter is the only lawyer at Sailfish Law, and he is personally accountable for every filing, letter, and strategic decision. AI helps with the volume, including document review, research, and first drafts, but nothing leaves his desk without his review for accuracy, relevance, and strategy. Legal citations and key facts are verified independently before they are relied on.

Client confidentiality is treated as a first obligation. Peter uses institutional-grade AI platforms that do not train their models on client data and that process information for the matter at hand rather than retaining it. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and any use of AI is handled consistently with the confidentiality duties that govern the attorney-client relationship.

By grounding the work in the actual record rather than in a model's general training. When AI reviews discovery, it works from the documents the parties produced. When it assists with research, it works from the authorities that apply to your matter. That document-grounded approach reduces the risk of invented results, and Peter independently verifies citations and factual claims before relying on them.

That is straightforward to handle. Illinois encourages the responsible, supervised use of AI and generally does not require lawyers to disclose AI use in drafting, but practices differ from court to court and judge to judge. Peter tracks the requirements of each court and complies with any disclosure rule that applies. Because the work is reviewed and verified either way, disclosure does not change the quality of what gets filed.

Most do, whether they say so or not. Any lawyer using Westlaw or Lexis is already relying on sophisticated AI, and many use general tools for research and drafting. The difference is how it is used. Sailfish Law was built around AI from the start, so the leverage is deliberate and integrated rather than occasional, and it is what lets one senior lawyer take on matters that once required a team.

AI changes the economics in two ways. First, work that once required teams of attorneys can be handled by one senior lawyer, so you are not paying for layers of people to touch your file. Second, certain cases are amenable to sharing risk, on the plaintiff side or the defense side, so Peter can work on a contingency or risk-sharing basis rather than straight hourly billing, pricing that risk the way he did underwriting litigation investments.

Where Peter bills by the hour, he bills only for the work he actually performs, and the client captures the efficiencies AI creates. Tell Peter about your case and he will give you a candid view of whether it is one he can take on risk.