CBA Record January-February 2026

This review protects the negotiated framework and keeps the redline lean for opposing counsel. Recurring, low-value edits are fed back to the team to improve the library and refine the prompts over time. Start Small, but Start: Practice Tips Most firms will eventually need dedicated professionals to design prompts, curate precedent, and maintain models. But that reality shouldn’t stop experimentation. Small and midsize practices can start narrow. Pick one docu ment type and one family of clauses. Pull three to five precedents you would sign again. Write a one-page playbook explaining what the clause should do, what to avoid, and two or three approved variations. Load that into the closed library. Add three simple rules for any AI prompt: 1. Work only within the clause shown. 2. Use approved language unless explicitly authorized other wise. 3. B racket any uncertainty with a short note. Pair that with a short review checklist: Verify defined terms, cross-references, numbering, and the business purpose of the change. With that scaffolding, a junior lawyer who might not know where to start can still start well, and a senior lawyer can focus on the judgment calls that matter. AI Benefits: Economics and Ethics Align When the first pass is faster and rework drops, alternative fees and caps become easier to scope and defend. Clients notice and so do associates, as they now spend more time analyzing and negotiating instead of transcribing. Ethical rules point the same way. Rule 1.3 requires diligence without sacrificing accuracy. Rule 1.4 requires explaining mate rial practice changes so clients can make informed decisions. Rule 1.5 requires that fees be reasonable and that the basis or rate of fees, and any changes, be clearly communicated. And the duty of candor sets the line: Unreviewed machine output isn’t lawyer work. Hours billed must reflect attorney review and judgment. Culture Determines Success AI shouldn’t decide what a contract says; lawyers should. The old fear that machines would replace deal lawyers has faded. What remains is a divide between those who learn to work well with these tools and those who don’t. Mastery isn’t a switch you flip; it’s a craft you practice. The process looks familiar: hypothesis, test, feedback, revision— guessing and checking with better instruments. Anyone who has experimented with these tools knows that the first output is rarely the one you keep. The usable draft almost always comes from the second, third, or fourth iteration, after a human with

real knowledge of both the precedent and the business context refines the direction and prompts the tool again. The lawyers who thrive will be those who understand how to think in prompts: how to translate professional judgment into clear instructions, evaluate what comes back, and iterate with purpose. That kind of practice requires firm-wide support. Building clause libraries, tuning prompts, and designing review checklists take time, often nonbillable and front-loaded. Firms that want better results must make experimentation part of the job, not an extracurricular activity. That means clear policies, structured training, and tangible incentives such as billable-credit allowances or innovation hours, recognition for improvements that reduce rework, and shared feedback loops where partners and associates review outputs together.

The path forward is neither blind trust nor blanket refusal— it’s disciplined design.

The point is cultural as much as technical. When experimenta tion, documentation, and iteration become institutional habits, technology strengthens, not threatens, the standard of care. A culture that rewards curiosity and precision will produce lawyers who not only draft faster but also think more clearly about why the language says what it says. The Lawyers Who Thrive The lawyers who thrive in this new environment will pair judg ment with disciplined tools. They will source from vetted text, frame assignments at the clause level, and insist on human sign off. Their files will show how the work was done with plain English comments, edits drawn from approved language, and uncertainties bracketed and resolved. That isn’t a looser practice. It’s a faster, clearer one. And it keeps the decision about what a contract says exactly where it belongs: with the lawyer who will stand behind it.

As a partner in Levenfeld Pearlstein’s Real Estate Group, Benjamin Altshul represents clients in a wide range of commercial real estate transactions with a focus on delivering practical solutions for owners, developers, and investors.

24 January/February 2026