AI ‘is a game-changer’ in disclosure and discovery

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already changing the delivery of legal services in Ireland, a recent conference in Dublin has heard. 

Speakers at the Clio Elevate Roadshow (February 12) were divided between AI-first disruptors and a more cautious approach, but agreed that AI in the legal field was here to stay.

However, the benefits and implementation strategies will vary according to practice type.

The Guinness Storehouse event was held to demonstrate Clio Work, a legal-research and work platform in which AI operates contextually within matter-management workflows.

Citing the example of Fenecas Law, which he co-founded in February 2025, Ross Galvin said its AI-first approach (using Clio) had seen it go from two practitioners to ten in the space of a year.

The solicitor said AI technology “democratises the legal industry,” and thus their practice, which represents “several global and multinational organisations and a number of high-net-worth individuals”, to "compete at the adult table" against firms with 50-lawyer litigation teams.

Fenecas uses AI to manage time-consuming processes such as intake, document summaries, chronologies, cross-referencing, and drafting.

“We found in disclosure and discovery it is a real game-changer,” Galvin said.

This technology allows his firm to be "strategy heavy" rather than "process heavy".

AI replaces juniors

Because AI has taken over the role of junior colleagues, Fenecas does not hire practitioners with less than four years’ experience.

Galvin acknowledged that this raised a question over future training. 

He also believes that the traditional law-firm model is under threat as a result, because it relies on "trainees working ten hours a day”.

Galvin added that the model of "six-minute time increments" was an "opaque structure" that clients no longer accepted.

 Fenecas offers flat-rate billing.

“We're coming in under-market slightly, say 25%, and we're then incentivised to be more efficient,” he explained.

Clients liked this transparency, he said, and it would force change throughout the legal profession regarding costs.

“That’s capitalism,” he observed.

Galvin said that, after working for a decade in the law, he had considered leaving the profession because of the workload.

Reduced workload

Technology, however, had reduced this.

The lawyer said that he was now able to focus on the part of law that he loved, and he had not worked a weekend in a year.

A distinction was drawn between AI implementation in new practices and existing ones.

No time to explore

Clonakilty solicitor Flor McCarthy said that the very heavy legal workload, with most solicitors “working flat out”, meant that few had time to explore and implement costly new tech. 

The managing partner of McCarthy and Co LLP also said that, in a six-solicitor, paper-heavy rural practice such as his own, where the work was predominantly B2C such as personal injury, conveyancing, and probate, the primary concern was not speed, but the "human piece" of the business.

In response to a question from Jeremy Small, chief executive of Jameson Legal Tech, McCarthy said many lawyers worried if AI was “making a rope for our own necks”.

The author of The Solicitor’s Guide to Marketing and Growing a Business said he could see the benefits of AI, but his primary concerns were practical and ethical: “How do we do this? How do we start and how do we do it safely?” 

He framed the threshold issue as enabling AI to access confidential client data “in a safe environment, where I'm comfortable this can be done compliantly and securely and safely”. 

Confidentiality

Current Law Society Senior Vice-President Martin Lawlor echoed this: "Confidentiality is the most important thing we give." 

“I don't see us competing with the big boys,” he added.

“They occupy a completely different space. They won’t be providing the level of private client services that we can provide,” he commented.

The managing partner of Coghlan and Kelly confirmed that his firm had begun using AI for basic management functions, and “in terms of strategy, looking at the direction of the firm, and in terms of getting our minds open, it's been highly useful from that point of view.” 

Lawlor situated AI within a history of technological disruption – fax, email, and mobile phones – but noted that earlier technologies were adopted in part because counter-parties forced the shift. 

AI, by contrast, the solicitor said, was not yet universally embedded, making adoption less externally compelled. 

From the Law Society’s perspective, he emphasised awareness of “regulatory, ethical and transparency and cyber security” challenges, referencing existing guidance and ongoing training and information initiatives.

He confirmed that there was no specific regulatory prohibition on AI use, but GDPR exposure and potential reporting to the Data Protection Commission remained live risks.

Both speakers focused on change management and the importance of trust, including bringing trainees, support staff, and colleagues along.

Lawlor suggested that AI implementation required defined objectives, structured project planning, cultural adaptation, and acceptance of temporary disruption.

He also proposed profession-wide surveys to move from anecdote to hard data on adoption patterns and measurable benefit.

Reframing

McCarthy suggested reframing the issue as business redesign rather than technology acquisition: firms should analyse processes and workflows and ask “what do I want to achieve in the first place?”

Lawlor anticipated that the Law Society would deliver more conferences, education, and guidance to mitigate ‘overwhelm’ and support informed adoption.

“We really want to see people using it,” he commented.

Speed of change

Ross Galvin challenged the notion that the technology "isn't ready” and concluded with a warning about the speed of change.

He noted that the quality of AI is "night and day" compared to just 12 months ago, stating: "If you don't adopt today, you miss out." 

However, like other speakers, Galvin stressed the importance of human oversight.

“Human judgment, at this moment in technology, has to remain sacrosanct,” he concluded.