top of page

Brewing the Future - CLE Conference Wrap-Up

Writer's picture: Kunoor ChopraKunoor Chopra

Updated: Jan 31


Cloud Court’s first-ever in-person CLE event, held last week at the vibrant Surly Brewing Co. in Minneapolis, was an overwhelming success! The event, themed "Brewing the Future: In-House Legal in the Age of LegalTech and AI," brought together 100 registrants from in-house legal departments, law firms, and legal service providers. Impressively, 98% of the attendees braved the chilly January weather to participate, proving that the draw of innovation in LegalTech knows no bounds.


Here are the highlights from the day.


Keynote and session 1 with contribution by Damien Riehl and Bill Childs


Damien Riehl from VLex, a renowned expert in AI and a longstanding friend of Cloud Court and many in the Twin Cities community, opened the day with an insightful keynote. He captivated the audience by separating the hype from practical applications of AI in law departments. He discussed large language models' rapid development, their effect on legal business models, and potential implications for lawyers and courts. His presentation was equal parts informational, terrifying, and exciting.  Where lawyers are terrified that technology will eat their lunch, Damien discussed Jevon’s Paradox—the idea that as technology becomes more efficient, the demand for legal services will grow due to reduced costs. He emphasized that embracing AI is no longer optional; it’s essential for staying competitive in the evolving legal landscape. Those who resist risk being left behind.


Key Takeaways

  • AI will drive efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing service delivery.

  • Legal professionals should focus on adopting technologies that allow for smarter workflows.

  • Greater consumption of legal services is inevitable as costs decline.

  • As technology gets more efficient, the cost of legal services will reduce. When the services get cheaper, we will use more of them. Therefore, efficiency will catalyze greater consumption.


Panel 1: Client Expectations in an AI-Driven Legal Landscape


This panel featured diverse perspectives from in house and law firms.  It was moderated by Bill Childs, formerly with 3M and Solventum, Whitney Stefko with Ford Motor Company, Amber Moren with Cargill, Sarah Riedel with Solventum and Eric Olson with Boman & Brooke. Together, they explored the adoption of AI in legal operations, challenges in training future lawyers, and the implications of AI on legal fees, sustainability, and service delivery.

The discussion began with panelists sharing how their organizations have approached AI adoption and where they currently stand. Whitney emphasized the necessity of generative AI to meet the fast-paced demands of business partners. She highlighted the value of conducting short-term pilots to evaluate tools and avoid being locked into outdated technology. Amber explained how her company is transitioning from a learning phase to experimenting with tools like ChatGPT Enterprise, focusing on practical applications such as contract drafting and automating repetitive tasks. Eric shared how his firm uses AI for tasks like discovery, drafting interrogatories, and identifying weaknesses in complaints. Bill shared how using tools like Cloud Court have helped in the testimony space.


The panel then turned to the future of AI in legal operations, discussing areas of the law most likely to benefit from advancements in AI. These included:

  • Document and testimony review.

  • Initial drafting of legal documents and arguments.

  • Extraction of key data from large volumes of documents.

  • Automating routine tasks like email intake and responses.


The panelists agreed that AI will enable leaner legal teams. For example, Whitney envisioned models where specialized partners work with fewer associates supported by AI tools, transforming traditional resource-heavy structures. Amber added that legal service delivery models are likely to evolve into more hybrid structures involving law firms, legal service providers, and technology integration.


The conversation also touched on the challenges of AI adoption, particularly change fatigue and the training of future lawyers. Whitney explained how her team has addressed resistance to change by focusing on clear value propositions, emphasizing skill development over platform training, and encouraging personal use of generative AI to build comfort. Eric raised concerns about how AI might impact the traditional ways lawyers are trained, urging the profession to find new ways to mentor and prepare young attorneys for strategic roles.


Finally, the panel addressed the impact of AI on legal fees. Whitney shared that in-house teams face increasing pressure to deliver more value without raising costs proportionally. She highlighted the importance of AI in achieving these goals. Similarly, Eric explained that firms must integrate AI into their processes to remain competitive and manage costs effectively. Amber emphasized the importance of demonstrating ROI and ensuring that AI adoption delivers measurable savings over time.


Predictions for the Next 3-5 Years

  • Greater clarity on human capacity to adopt emerging technologies.

  • A shift toward insourcing legal functions.

  • Evolution of pricing models and growth in alternative business structures (e.g., ABS in Arizona).

  • It is going to be a roller coaster, so hold on!


Lightning Round Takeaways

  • Test what are testable assertions.

  • Be bullish but cautious.

  • Encourage leaders to take 10 hours using Gen AI to understand the art of what is possible. This could mean using ChatGPT to accomplish work tasks or downloading Copilot onto your mobile phone and asking it to solve problems, so that you can see Gen AI strengths and limitations.

  • Learn from other customer experiences. Do a pilot; try it out.

  • Identify the problem, get comfortable with the use case, and measure ROI. Start there and build.


Lunch Break: AI Highlights


Over lunch, attendees were treated to demonstrations of AI-powered tools by Tony Beasley from Microsoft and Mark Noel from Elevate.


Tony discussed M365 Copilot and how it’s useful to him as a frontline product counsel at Microsoft. Tony showed a demonstration of how M365 Copilot can be used to compare and redline contracts and also draft FAQs about emerging regulations. These are examples of how Copilot can help Tony and others in Microsoft legal spend less time on routine tasks and more time building deeper client relationships and delivering value on higher-priority projects.


Mark’s main thesis was that there are several independent factors that are tempting people to view LLMs / GenAI as all-purpose solutions — magic buttons or silver bullets:

  • Vendors: Easier to sell general-purpose solutions

  • Human nature: We lean towards simpler, more general tools

  • Science & Tech: Current drift in research and academia reversing the historical view of hardware as general and software as task-specific


His recent experience and experimental results have suggested that fox-like approaches often work better with ML/AI than hedgehog-like approaches. So, his admonition to the audience was to be aware of all the lures towards a hedgehog-like solution, and to remember to let the fox loose once in a while.


Panel 2: Reimagining Legal Service Delivery Models in the Age of AI with contribution by Pratik Patel


The panel included members from various layers of the legal ecosystem. Pratik Patel from Elevate moderated the panel.  Kate Middleton, AGC of Litigation at Ecolabs represented the in-house perspective.  Andy Crowder, Partner at Norton Rose Fulbright represented the outside counsel perspective.  Nicole Auerbach, Co-Founder at Elevate’s integrated law firm represented the emerging model of law company + law firm+ tech.  


The panel started by discussing each member’s “aha” moment that catapulted them into using and deploying more technology as part of their daily routine and law practices.  Kate, as in-house counsel, mentioned her progression as a lawyer and constantly competing with rising demands and limited resources.  She mentioned the only way out of some of these pressure points is to use and deploy tech as an asset for the team to keep up with rising demands and tighter budgets.  Andy mentioned how, as an outside counsel lawyer, he is getting more questions and demand for the use of technology in litigation.  That focus is not just on saving money – while that is deeply important, it is more about using technology to “even the playing field” and create advantages for small, specialized and niche teams who don’t have tons of associates to help.  Nicole talked about one of her “aha” moments being how critical technology is to the ability to drive and deliver alternative fee arrangements.  Nicole and her firm were one of the first to offer 95% of all legal services delivered under an AFA, which drove and incentivized them to explore and use tech.


The discussion then turned to where and how each member was using AI in their current practice to drive more successful outcomes.  The responses were:

  • Kate:  Automation / AI in document review, AI-assisted 

  • Andy: AI-assisted testimony review and intelligence.  “We now know where and how the fast balls are coming”

  • Nicole:  AI-assisted discovery responses and testimony review and intelligence


They next addressed where they believe AI will be used most heavily in the near future.  Some of the responses included:

  • Document and testimony review and intelligence

  • Initial drafting of documents and potential arguments

  • Citations and depo designations

  • Extraction and reporting of key information within large volumes of documents

  • Automation of email intake and routine responses


The panel then discussed how they believed the legal service delivery model would evolve over the next few years.  All agreed that most legal matters now require “T-shaped legal teams”, which are defined as a combination of skillsets that include both law expertise and business expertise, including financial analysis, legal project management, technology and process improvement.  Further to that, they believed the overall legal ecosystem would evolve to include:

  • Greater use and presence of law companies and ALSPs to support traditional law practice

  • More associates, who are powered by AI, to support and deliver on “latent” work that could never get done or was put aside because the sheer lack of resources available to handle the demand of legal work that is required by corporate + consumer market

  • Specialized partners would be able to operate with leaner teams overall (1 partner + 3 associates + AI instead of 1 partner + 7 associates)

  • AI-powered law firms (the whole firm is built on tech and with lawyers who know how to deploy tech)


The last topic discussed was how all of this evolution would impact legal fees.  Kate started off by mentioning the growing pressure, as an in-house counsel, to show and demonstrate how they were being smart about delivering outcomes with better value.  She believed that while legal fees may not go down, they definitely should not increase at the same pace as the pace of demand.  In other words, overall, they have to manage legal costs as a ratio of company revenue better and better as the company grows.  Andy supported that notion and said that ultimately legal fees using tech will go down, but it is still unclear how that will work.  He stressed that law firms need to invest in finding ways to use tech to do that and hopes that in-house counsel will partner and support the firms as they experiment on the right formulate.  Nicole wrapped up by saying that AFAs will drive greater use of technology and while year 1 costs may be a bit higher (and agreeing with Andy’s point), that ultimately, if done right, the customer will be left with a recurring fee that is 20 to 30% less on a year-over-year basis that can generate recurring savings.  


Overall, there was complete alignment that legal service delivery models are going to change from being mostly traditional law to being a combination of law firm + law company + tech.  And customers are becoming more demanding of this as they face more pressure by the CEO to contribute more value to the business.


Key Themes

  • AI reduces time spent on repetitive tasks, allowing associates to focus on substantive legal work.

  • Prompting matters and is more fun.

  • One way to make an in-house lawyer look good is by helping them reduce legal spend.

  • Examples like Cloud Court’s testimony management tool and Elevate’s use of CaseText’s CoCounsel for discovery responses illustrated the practical benefits of AI.

  • Human oversight remains essential to maximize the value of AI tools.


Panel 3: Assessment and Integration of AI Tools for In-House Teams with contribution from Tony Beasley


This panel was moderated by Tony Beasley from Microsoft and represented the legal ecosystem with members from the in house, law firm, legal technology and academic community. Panelists included Bill Childs, formerly with 3M and Solventum, Prof. Dan Schwarcz from the University of Minnesota, Whitney Stefko from Ford Motor Company and Eric Lambert from Trimble. They analyzed various strategies that in-house departments have employed in testing, integrating, and evaluating AI tools for their legal teams. It also critically examined, with the help of new academic research, the potential value of AI in legal practices.


The conversation began with each panelist discussing their department's current position on the AI adoption spectrum. Whitney mentioned how Ford was an early adopter of generative AI tools such as CaseText CoCounsel and has established a task force to promote the use of newer AI tools with strong support from leadership. Eric talked about how his 31-person team at Trimble uses a customized ChatGPT-4o-based tool with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) built on Azure to assist lawyers with questions related to labor law. Conversely, Professor Schwarcz highlighted the conservative stance on AI adoption within academic circles and at the Minnesota Law School.


The panel then explored different reactions among colleagues regarding the usefulness of AI tools. To facilitate this discussion, Professor Schwarcz presented data from his law students showing the time saved using AI for tasks, the accuracy of those tasks, and their experience ratings. The panelists compared these findings to their anecdotal experiences as in-house lawyers, noting that AI tools are often more effective and safer when used to replicate or expedite familiar tasks rather than perform entirely new ones. Whitney discussed Ford's approach to measuring AI usefulness, including a “Day of the Dead” where AI use cases that did not meet expectations are reviewed and learned from before being discontinued.


This discussion transitioned into examining the role of human oversight in AI use, particularly in legal-related tasks. Eric described how Trimble assesses risk concerning agentic AI systems that execute generative AI queries without constant human supervision, considering emerging regulations and legal ethics, such as Rule 5.3, which pertains to nonlawyer assistance. Whitney emphasized the importance of human oversight in AI, equating it to the monitoring and mentoring of junior associates.


Best Practices Takeaways

· Conduct demo days to familiarize stakeholders with new tools.

· Train teams on both technology usage and effective prompting techniques.

· Share lessons learned from failed use cases to drive growth and innovation.

· Day of the dead—talk about what use cases have failed. Growth is the goal, not perfection.


Panel 4: Corporate IP Strategies in the Age of AI with contribution from Ben Armitage and Greg Smock


The day concluded with an examination of how artificial intelligence is reshaping IP strategies and legal practice. This panel included representatives of the ecosystem including in-house, law firm and consulting companies.  It was moderated by Ben Armitage of Billion & Armitage and Greg Smock of Reprise Biomedical.  Panelists included Robert Crist from Medtronic, Mike Geise from General Mills, Ann McCrackin from AI-Enabled Attorney, and Matt Prater from SABIC. Together, they discussed how legal professionals can leverage AI to enhance efficiency, manage risks, and adapt to a rapidly evolving IP landscape.


Ann opened by outlining criteria for evaluating generative AI tools, stressing the importance of aligning tools with specific workflows. She encouraged attorneys to experiment with various AI tools to find those that effectively improve efficiency. Mike followed with a case study on General Mills’ proprietary “MillsChat” AI tool, highlighting how it was developed to address security concerns while enhancing internal productivity.


The conversation turned to AI’s role in patent prosecution, with Rob sharing his experiences at Boston Scientific, Apple, and Medtronic. He discussed how these organizations have/have not embraced AI in collaboration with outside counsel, emphasizing the need to verify AI-generated patent claims to avoid inventorship disputes. Matt echoed these points, offering strategies for maintaining accurate records of inventor contributions as AI becomes increasingly integral to patent applications. Both panelists advised younger attorneys to critically evaluate AI tools and not overly rely on their outputs without careful review.


In the context of branding, marketing, and product development, Mike highlighted General Mills’ use of AI to initiate some marketing content and product development based on consumer feedback at the forefront. He also detailed key contractual protections the company includes when third-party vendors use AI in projects. Matt and Rob built on this by outlining essential AI-related terms that companies should incorporate into vendor and third-party contracts, drawing on real-world examples from industries spanning technology and medical devices.


The session concluded with practical advice for adopting AI responsibly, encouraging attendees to be proactive, critical, and ethical in their approach.


Key takeaways

  • Advocate advocating for AI’s potential

  • Recognize that adoption is a gradual process, choosing the right tools for the right tasks

  • Build habits around using AI tools

  • Experiment with AI in personal life to identify professional opportunities.


Networking Reception and Exclusive Dinner


The event wrapped up with a networking reception at Surly Brewing Co. An exclusive, invite-only dinner hosted by Elevate provided the perfect conclusion to an inspiring day.


Final Thoughts


Cloud Court’s inaugural CLE event was a resounding success, offering attendees actionable insights and practical tools to navigate the rapidly evolving LegalTech landscape. From thought-provoking panels to hands-on demonstrations, the day reinforced the necessity of embracing AI to stay ahead in the legal profession.  And, most importantly, it allowed us to bring together the legal community in the Twin Cities to foster this conversation.


We’re already looking forward to next year’s event and continuing the conversation on how LegalTech can empower in-house legal teams and their partners.

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page