We’re genuinely bullish on AI – there are real, valuable applications across the drafting workflow, particularly for blank-page problems, and we’re continually building new capability into Clarilis AI Draft.

But enthusiasm has to be grounded in ROI, and when you do the honest accounting on drafting efficiency, the numbers consistently favour starting from a trusted, expertly-crafted precedent paired with a deterministic approach to drafting. The comparison that matters isn’t “AI output vs. a blank page” – it’s “AI output including all downstream review, supervision, and error-correction time” vs. “a logic-driven automation built on solid precedent.” When you run that calculation, the deterministic, precedent-first approach wins. Every time a lawyer has to interrogate an AI-generated clause they didn’t author, you’re paying a tax. That tax compounds across a large practice.
So the question we’d put to firm leaders isn’t “are you pro-AI or anti-AI?” It’s “where in the workflow does AI actually move the needle on ROI, and where does it just move the risk around?”