{"id":1542,"date":"2025-10-27T21:51:24","date_gmt":"2025-10-27T17:51:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/lexisnexis-ceo-says-the-ai-law-era-is-already-here\/"},"modified":"2025-10-27T21:51:24","modified_gmt":"2025-10-27T17:51:24","slug":"lexisnexis-ceo-says-the-ai-law-era-is-already-here","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/lexisnexis-ceo-says-the-ai-law-era-is-already-here\/","title":{"rendered":"LexisNexis CEO says the AI law era is already here"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"

\n\t\t<\/figcaption><\/p><\/figure>\n

Today, I\u2019m talking with Sean Fitzpatrick, the CEO of LexisNexis, one of the most important companies in the entire legal system. For years \u2014 including when I was in law school \u2014 LexisNexis was basically the library. It\u2019s where you went to look up case law, do legal research, and find the laws and precedents you would need to be an effective lawyer for your clients. There isn\u2019t a lawyer today who hasn\u2019t used it \u2014 it\u2019s fundamental infrastructure for the legal profession, just like email or a word processor.<\/p>\n

But enterprise companies with huge databases of proprietary information in 2025 can\u2019t resist the siren call of AI, and LexisNexis is no different. You\u2019ll hear it: when I asked Sean to describe LexisNexis to me, the first word he said wasn\u2019t \u201claw\u201d or \u201cdata,\u201d it was \u201cAI.\u201d The goal is for the LexisNexis AI tool, called Prot\u00e9g\u00e9, to go beyond simple research, and help lawyers draft the actual legal writing they submit to the court in support of their arguments.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a big deal, because so far AI has created just as much chaos and slop in the courts as anywhere else. There is a consistent drumbeat of stories about lawyers getting caught and sanctioned for relying on AI tools that cite hallucinated case law that doesn\u2019t exist, and there have even been two court rulings retracted because the judges appeared to use AI tools that hallucinated the names of the plaintiffs and cited facts and and quoted cases that didn\u2019t exist. Sean thinks it\u2019s only a matter of time before an attorney somewhere loses their license because of sloppy use of AI.<\/p>\n

\"\"\n

Verge<\/em> subscribers, don\u2019t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free\u00a0Decoder<\/em>\u00a0wherever you get your podcasts. Head here<\/a>. Not a subscriber? You can sign up here<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

So the big promise LexisNexis is making about Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 is simply accuracy \u2014 that everything it produces will be based on the real law, and much more trustworthy than a general purpose AI tool. You\u2019ll hear Sean explain how LexisNexis built their AI tools and teams so that they can make that promise \u2014 LexisNexis has hired many more lawyers to review AI work than he expected, for example.<\/p>\n

But I also wanted to know what Sean thinks tools like Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 will do to the profession of law itself, to the job of being a lawyer. If AI is doing all the legal research and writing you\u2019d normally have junior associates doing, how will those junior associates learn the craft? How will we develop new senior people without a pipeline of junior people in the weeds of the work? And if I\u2019m submitting AI legal writing to a judge using AI to read it, aren\u2019t we getting close to automating a little too much of the judicial system? These are big questions, and they\u2019re coming real fast for the legal industry.<\/p>\n

I also pressed Sean pretty hard on how judges, particularly conservative judges, are using computers and technology in service of a judicial theory called originalism, which states that laws can only mean what they meant at the time they were enacted. We\u2019ve run stories at The Verge<\/em><\/a> about judges letting automated linguistics systems try and understand the originalist intent of various statutes to reach their preferred outcomes, and AI is only accelerating that trend \u2014 especially in an era where literally every part of the Constitution appears to be up for grabs before an incredibly partisan Supreme Court.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So I asked Sean to demo Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 doing some legal research for me, on questions that appear to be settled but are newly up for grabs in the Trump administration, like birthright citizenship. To his credit, he was game \u2014 but you can see how taking the company from one that provides simple research tools to one that provides actual legal reasoning with AI will have big implications across the board.<\/p>\n

This one is weedsy, but it\u2019s important.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Okay: LexisNexis CEO Sean Fitzpatrick. Here we go.<\/p>\n

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.<\/em><\/p>\n

Sean Fitzpatrick, you\u2019re the CEO of LexisNexis. Welcome to <\/strong>Decoder<\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thank you. Great to be here.<\/p>\n

Thank you for joining me. This is my first interview back from parental leave. Apologies to the audience if I\u2019m rusty, but apologies to you if I\u2019m just totally loopy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Congratulations!<\/p>\n

I\u2019m very excited to talk to you. I\u2019m very much a failed lawyer, my wife is a lawyer, there\u2019s a lot of lawyers on <\/strong>The Verge<\/em><\/strong> team. The legal profession in America is at a moment of absolute change, a lot of chaos, and an enormous amount of uncertainty. And LexisNexis, if the audience knows, tends to sit at the heart of what lawyers do all day. Most lawyers are using LexisNexis every minute of every day. What that product is, what it can do, and how it helps lawyers do their job connects to a lot of themes that we\u2019re seeing both in the legal profession and in technology and AI generally.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

So, start at the start. What is LexisNexis? How would you explain it to the layperson?<\/strong><\/p>\n

LexisNexis is an AI-powered provider of information, analytics, and drafting solutions for lawyers that work in law firms, corporations, and government entities.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a new conception of LexisNexis. When I was in law school in the early 2000s, it was just the thing I searched to find case law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, we\u2019ve transformed over time. We were just that research provider. Over time, we\u2019ve acquired and integrated more businesses. In 2020, when we launched our Lexis+ product, we integrated all those things together, becoming an integrated ecosystem of solutions. Then, in 2023, we launched Lexis+ AI, and that\u2019s when we really became an AI-powered provider of information analytics, decision tools, and drafting solutions. AI capabilities have really allowed us to do more things than what we\u2019ve traditionally done in the past<\/p>\n

That jump from being the gold standard database of legal opinions, reasonings, case notes, and all that to \u201cwe\u2019re going to do the work for you or help you do the work\u201d is a big one. That\u2019s a cultural jump. Obviously, there were some acquisitions along the way that helped you to make that jump, which you can talk about. What drove you to make that jump, to say, \u201cActually, the lawyers need help drafting the motions, the proposed opinions they might give to a judge?\u201d What made you say, \u201cOkay, we\u2019ve got to step into actually doing the work?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think it\u2019s been a natural evolution. As technology has evolved, it\u2019s opened up new avenues of things we can do. We tend to take the latest technology, introduce it to our customers, and spend time talking to them about how they think that technology can be best applied in the legal environment. Then, we translate the ideas they came up with into products that resolve or address those opportunities.<\/p>\n

Let me ask you a pretty philosophical question. It\u2019s one that I struggle with all the time. It\u2019s one that I talk to our audience about all the time. I think most people who encounter the legal system think it\u2019s pretty deterministic. Our audience is pretty technically focused. They\u2019re used to computers. Computers are, until recently, pretty deterministic. You put in some inputs, you get some outputs. Most people who encounter the legal system think it\u2019s pretty deterministic. You put in some inputs and you get some predictable outputs.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And what I\u2019m always saying is, \u201cThat\u2019s not how it works at all.\u201d You show up to court, the judge is in a bad mood, you have no idea what\u2019s going to happen. You\u2019re a big company with an antitrust appeal, you show up to the three-judge appellate review board, and you have no idea what\u2019s going to happen. Literally anything could happen at any time. The judicial system is fundamentally not deterministic. Even though it\u2019s structured like a computer, trying to think about it like one can get you in all kinds of trouble. Maybe the best example of this is people on Facebook putting the words \u201cno copyright intended\u201d on the bottom of movies. They think they can issue these magic words and the legal system is solved, and they just can\u2019t.<\/strong><\/p>\n

AI is that problem in a nutshell. We\u2019re going to take a computer, make it better at natural language. We\u2019re going to make the computer fundamentally not deterministic \u2014 you can\u2019t really predict what an AI is going to do \u2014 and then we\u2019re going to apply that to the fundamentally non-deterministic, human nature of the court system. Somewhere in there is a big philosophical problem about applying computers to the justice system. How do you think about that?<\/strong><\/p>\n

First of all, you have these massive investments happening with the foundational models. Each of these hyperscalers \u2014 Microsoft, Amazon, Google \u2014 are putting in close to $100 billion. So these models just continue to get better and better over time. That\u2019s at the foundational model level. We don\u2019t really operate at that level. We build applications that utilize these foundational models. And at that level, we see prices are dropping. We used to pay $20 for 1 million tokens two years ago, and today we might pay 10 cents for 1 million tokens. That allows us to do things at speed and at scale that we\u2019ve never been able to do before.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And there are a lot of things about the law that make these models attractive. Most of the law is language-based, and these models are really great with language problems. The law is precedent-based, and so \u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n

Well, that\u2019s up for grabs. We\u2019ll come back to it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll grant you that. You look at the activities that lawyers do: they draft documents, they do research, they summarize things. The models are all really good at these types of things. So, you have this perfect storm, with this technology and the things lawyers do coming together.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Yet, when people try to use these consumer-grade models, there are all kinds of problems with them. Like you said, it\u2019s not deterministic. You can\u2019t just put information into a computer and get an answer out. If that were the case, we wouldn\u2019t need a court system. These models are just not built for the legal system. You can\u2019t go into court and say, \u201cI found this on the internet.\u201d You have to have authoritative content.<\/p>\n

The cut-off date for GPT-4o was 2023, I believe. You need to have information that\u2019s constantly updated. Your audience probably doesn\u2019t know this,, but there\u2019s the citator, which traditionally has said, \u201cThis is good law\u201d or \u201cIt\u2019s not good law, it\u2019s been overturned.\u201d Now, it\u2019ll tell you if it\u2019s the law at all or if some system just made it up. These systems are probabilistic. They want to put together an answer that\u2019s probably right. Well, that\u2019s not the standard we have in legal. You can\u2019t go in with something that\u2019s probably right. So, you have this whole list of issues that these models don\u2019t address.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What we\u2019ve tried to do is address those with a courtroom-grade solution. Our system is backed by 160 billion documents and records. Our curated collection is our grounding data. So can\u2019t go into court and say, \u201cI found this on the internet,\u201d but you can refer to a specific case. We also have what we call a citator agent that\u2019ll check that case to make sure that it wasn\u2019t fabricated by the system and is actually still good law. You can also look at the case law summary so you know what the case is about. You can look at the headnotes so you can see the particular points of law that were addressed in that case and see if it\u2019s still a valid case.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Privacy is another issue. There\u2019s a special relationship that exists between attorneys and their clients in that attorney-client privilege, so there\u2019s some privacy requirements that you need in order to maintain that. If you\u2019re using one of these just consumer-grade models, you don\u2019t have the level of privacy and security that you need. Transparency is another issue. You put a question in, you get an answer back. Well, based on what? What was the logic that the system used? We open up the black box so you can see the logic that\u2019s being applied. We give the attorneys the ability to go in and actually change that. If this model is getting something wrong, the attorney has the opportunity to change it so that they get the outcome that they\u2019re driving for. But, as you said, the law is not deterministic. There are lots of different factors that go into this, but you need to have a system that\u2019s legally driven, that\u2019s purpose built for legal situations in order to really operate in a courtroom-type environment.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s two things I really want to push on. Again, I was not a good lawyer. I don\u2019t want to ever pretend on the show, to you, or to anyone else that I was any good at this. But you learn a particular way of thinking in law school, which is a pretty rigorous, structured way of approaching a problem, going to find the relevant cases and precedents, and then trying to fashion some solution based on that. That feels like we\u2019re just moving words around, but it\u2019s actually a way of thinking. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Before AI showed up, we would mash together using a word processor and thinking a certain way. Now, we\u2019re pulling them apart. We\u2019re saying that the computer can move the words around and generate some thinking. So, that\u2019s one thing I want to push on. I\u2019m very curious about that because it feels like the lawyering part of being a lawyer is being subsumed into a system, and that might change how we lawyer.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The other part is if anyone is going to look at the work being done. We\u2019re already seeing lawyers get sanctioned for filing briefs with hallucinated case citations in them. There was just a case where, I believe, a court had to rescind an opinion because it had a hallucinated case citation in it. This is bad. This is just straightforwardly a threat to the system and how we might think about lawyers, judges, and courts. It\u2019s not clear to me that anyone\u2019s going to use the tools as rigorously as you want.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So on the one hand there\u2019s \u201cWe\u2019ve made the thinking easier.\u201d On the other hand, it\u2019s, \u201cOh, boy, everyone\u2019s going to get really lazy.\u201d They\u2019re both in your answer. They\u2019re both saying, \u201cWe\u2019re making it easier to look at this stuff. We\u2019re making it faster to do the research.\u201d I\u2019m just wondering where you think the thinking comes in.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think that these models replace the lawyers. I think they help the lawyer and augment what the lawyer does. So, if you think about an activity that a lawyer might do \u2014 let\u2019s say they were preparing for a deposition. They need to come up with a list of questions that they\u2019re going to ask the individual that\u2019s being deposed. You can take the facts around that particular case, load them into a vault, and point the system to that vault and say, \u201cBased on the facts of this particular matter, develop a list of deposition questions.\u201d That\u2019s something that a lawyer would\u2019ve done on their own. In the past, they may have referred to a list of questions that they had previously or something \u2014<\/p>\n

Actually, can I just grab that example? Maybe a lawyer would\u2019ve done that, but more often a lawyer would\u2019ve told a bunch of junior associates to sit in the basement and do that.<\/strong> That was how those junior associates learned how to do their job. That\u2019s what I mean. We\u2019re farming out the thinking, and some people might never actually do that thinking. That might change the profession down the line in really substantive ways.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Right. It is an apprentice system. So, if you start to take some of the layers out of the bottom, how does everyone skip the bottom layer and still make it to the second with the same capabilities and skills? That\u2019s a real challenge. I think the systems are allowing lawyers to not have the associate do that work. Now they can say, \u201cGenerate me 300 or 700 questions.\u201d It doesn\u2019t take that long to go through 700 questions, and the models never get tired. From our experience, they\u2019ll go through that list of questions and say, \u201cFirst question? Yep, that\u2019s a good question. I would\u2019ve thought of that.\u201d <\/p>\n

The system made it a little bit faster, but it didn\u2019t really help them. Second question, same thing. Third question, same thing. Fourth question doesn\u2019t even make any sense, scratch it off the list. With the fifth question they\u2019ll say, \u201cOh, that\u2019s interesting, I wouldn\u2019t have thought to ask that but that\u2019s probably important, so I\u2019m going to add that to my list.\u201d So, there\u2019s an efficiency component to it, but I think there\u2019s also a better outcome component.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In terms of the apprenticeship piece, I think people are struggling right now to figure out how that\u2019s going to impact the apprenticeship model. Someone was describing to me that they had worked on a situation where they were looking at securitized assets. When they were an associate, they did this project for a company that had 50 states worth of coverage, and so they became the expert in the firm on asset securitization in all 50 states. For four or five years, anytime somebody had a question, they came to that individual. It was a great way to make a career. Now, the system can do all that information for you. So his question was: \u201cHow is that ever going to happen now in this new world?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

I think firms are going to struggle with that, but I also think they\u2019re going to figure it out. We tend to get some of the smartest and brightest people going into the legal profession, and so far, they seem to have figured out every challenge that\u2019s faced the industry. I think they\u2019ll figure this one out as well.<\/p>\n

What are some solutions you\u2019ve seen as people try to figure this out?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know that folks have come up with a lot of solutions around the apprenticeship model. What we\u2019re for sure seeing is that people are embracing AI. It\u2019s here, it\u2019s in the courtroom, it\u2019s in the law firm. Two-thirds of attorneys are using AI in their work, according to our surveys<\/a>, and our survey\u2019s probably a little outdated. I\u2019d say the number\u2019s probably higher. I don\u2019t know about you, but I use AI every day.\u00a0 It\u2019s now in my personal and work lives. I think the legal profession is perfectly suited for it, so it\u2019s only going to expand.<\/p>\n

When you see the <\/strong>lawyers<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>getting<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>sanctioned<\/strong><\/a> and the courts having to <\/strong>rescind opinions<\/strong><\/a>, is there a solution that involves using LexisNexis so it won\u2019t happen to you? Or do you think that\u2019s a symptom of something else? Everyone\u2019s just using AI, I get it. Probably the biggest split for our audience right now is between the data that says everyone\u2019s using this stuff all the time and the hostility our audience expresses about the tools, their quality, and the fact that a lot of that usage is driven by big companies just putting it in front of them. There\u2019s something happening where, to justify these enormous investments, the tools are showing up whether the consumers are asking for them or not, and then we\u2019re pointing out that everyone\u2019s using the tools.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What I hear from our audience is, \u201cWell, I can\u2019t turn off the AI overview. Of course I\u2019m using the tool because it\u2019s just in front of me all the time. I can\u2019t make Microsoft Office stop telling me that it\u2019s going to help me. It\u2019s just in front of me all the time.\u201d So, when you see the errors being made in the legal system today \u2014 the lawyers getting sanctioned, the lazy AI use, the lack of apprenticeship that\u2019s going to impact the entire next generation of lawyers and how rigorous they are \u2014\u00a0 how do you make your product address that? Or are you just not thinking about that right now?<\/strong><\/p>\n

No, we\u2019re definitely thinking about it, and we\u2019ve incorporated things into our product. These things always make the headlines when they happen, but I think it\u2019s a small percentage of attorneys that are causing these problems. Just taking something and bringing it into court has never been the standard. You\u2019ve always had the responsibility as a lawyer to check the material and make sure that it\u2019s valid before going into court. And some individuals aren\u2019t doing that. We certainly saw that in the [Tim] Burke case<\/a> where some attorneys submitted a document to the court that I think had eight citations in it and seven of them were just completely \u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n

But that was inevitable. The day ChatGPT showed up, half of the legal pundits I know were like, \u201cThis is inevitable. This outcome will happen,\u201d and then it happened. There wasn\u2019t even a stutter step. It just happened immediately. That\u2019s what I\u2019m trying to push on. Is the solution just that LexisNexis has a tool that\u2019s better and you should pay for it, or is the profession going to have to build some new guardrails as we take the rigor away from the younger associates?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, you can never stop an attorney from taking it into court and not doing the proper work. That\u2019s going to continue to happen. I think somebody\u2019s going to lose their license over this at some point. We\u2019re seeing the sanctions start to ratchet up. So, a couple attorneys got fined $5,000 a piece<\/a>, and then some attorneys in federal court down in Alabama got referred to the state bar association for disciplinary action<\/a>. I think the stakes are increasing and increasing. What we do with our system is provide a link to a citation if we have it, so you can click on it and see it in our system.<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s no fabricated cases within our system. We have a collection mechanism that ensures that every case in there is valid. It\u2019s shepardized<\/a> and has headnotes and different tools that lawyers can use. So, we make it really easy for you to use our system to check and make sure that the citations you\u2019re bringing into court are not only valid and still good law but are also in the right format. Format is important. We check for all these things and make it really easy for the lawyer to do the work they need to do. They need to make sure that case is on point, that the case is still valid.<\/p>\n

One of the many reasons I was a horrible lawyer was because of that moment when you get your first law firm job and you realize your boss just has a library of their favorite motions on file. They\u2019re just going to pull from the card catalog, change some names and dates, and file the motion. The judge will recognize the motion and the attorney, and this is all just a weird formality to get through the next stage of the process. Maybe we\u2019ll never get to the substantive part of the case because we\u2019re just going to settle it, but we need to file this motion we had and elaborate. This truly was demoralizing. I was like, \u201cI\u2019m just doing paperwork. There\u2019s nothing about this that is real.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m probably describing what every first year associate goes through until the check hits, and it just didn\u2019t work for me. How close are you to having Lexus AI just do that thing, have it recognize the moment and say, \u201cWe have the banked motion and we\u2019re just going to file it to a system?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, we can connect into a document management system (DMS) that has an attorney\u2019s prior motions. We have our vault capabilities, so they can load their motions up. They can still use the motions they\u2019ve already developed. And that\u2019s a perfectly fine way to do things because \u2014<\/p>\n

Well, I\u2019m saying, from scratch.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Right. We have the ability to do it from scratch too, but a lot of attorneys don\u2019t want to do it from scratch because they\u2019ve reviewed every single word in that motion and they know that it\u2019s good. If they do it from scratch, then they have to review every single word. But if they want to do it from scratch, we can do that for them today, and if they want, we can use their prior work product as the grounding content to create a new motion, or we can use our authoritative material. They can choose the source and the grounding content.<\/p>\n

I guess I\u2019m asking what level of automation is there. So, you\u2019re an attorney. You\u2019ve got a document management system, you\u2019ve got a new client, and you need to file some standardized motion that you always file for whatever thing you need to do, like a <\/strong>continuance<\/strong><\/a>. At what point does Lexis [AI] say, \u201cI\u2019m watching this case. I\u2019m going to file this for you. I\u2019m just going to hit the buttons for you. Don\u2019t worry about it,\u201d in the way that a great legal assistant might do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re always going to give the attorney the opportunity. We don\u2019t want to just be doing things on their behalf unsupervised, so we\u2019re going to give them the opportunity. We could get to the point where we say, \u201cIt looks like you need a continuance. Here\u2019s a draft of a continuance push,\u201d and it will automatically file it. We\u2019re not at that point today, but if you need a continuance, we could draft it for you. Our vision is that every attorney is going to have their own personalized AI assistant, and it\u2019s going to understand their practice area and their jurisdiction, along with having access to their prior work product. <\/p>\n

The systems are only as good as the content behind them, so it\u2019s going to have access to our 160 billion documents and records, and it\u2019s going to be able to automate tasks that they do today. If you think about all the different types of attorneys and all the different tasks that they perform, there\u2019s probably 10,000 tasks that could be automated.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So, we\u2019re working with our customers to understand what the most important tasks are, and we\u2019re working with them to automate those tasks today. We have the largest and most robust backlog of projects that we\u2019ve ever had in our company\u2019s history because there are so many of things that can still be automated, and we\u2019re working with our customers to do that. If they tell us, \u201cWhat we really want is for you to automatically file this\u201d or for us to provide them with an alert that says, \u201cHey, this deadline is coming up and you need to file this. Here\u2019s a draft. Do you want to file it?\u201d I\u2019m sure we can develop it.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re not at that point today, but we are in the drafting phase. That vision is not a five-year vision or a three-year vision, that\u2019s available today. That\u2019s Prot\u00e9g\u00e9<\/a>. That\u2019s what Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 does today. There are tasks that it can do, but we haven\u2019t finished that massive backlog yet.<\/p>\n

If you look at the sweep of other CEOs who\u2019ve been on <\/strong>Decoder<\/em><\/strong>, they\u2019re going to tell you, \u201cYou just integrate our computer vision system and we\u2019ll use [electronic case files] for you to file this motion.\u201d They\u2019ll all be very happy to sell you that product, I\u2019m sure.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The reason I\u2019m asking it this way is because when I get the consumer AI CEOs on the show, they love to tell me that they\u2019re going to write my emails for me with AI, and then the next sentence they say is, \u201cThen, we\u2019ll sort your inbox with AI.\u201d At some point, the robots are just writing emails to each other and I\u2019m reading summaries. Something very important has been lost in that chain. One of the funniest outcomes of AI is my iPhone suddenly just summarizing emails and generating emails for other iPhones to summarize, and I have no idea what\u2019s going on.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s bad in the legal context. We\u2019re automating document generation to make the case for our clients. On the other side, the judges and clerks might be using these same tools to ingest the cases, summarize them, understand the arguments, and write the opinions that are the outcomes. Culturally, I think it\u2019s important for you to have a point of view on where that should stop because otherwise we are just going to have a fully automated justice system of LLMs talking to each other. Maybe there\u2019ll be some guardrails that other people don\u2019t have, but we\u2019ve taken an enormous amount of humans out of the loop.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think you have to have the human in the loop.\u00a0 It\u2019s an important part of the process. I could see the bots going back and forth on things like if someone says, \u201cHey, can you meet at nine o\u2019clock?\u201d and your system opens up the calendar, says you\u2019re available to meet this person on your high priority list, and sets up the meeting. When you\u2019re talking about substantive legal matters, the stakes are too high. You\u2019re talking about a disabled veteran getting or not getting their benefits. You\u2019re talking about a victim of a natural disaster getting or not getting insurance proceeds. You\u2019re talking about a single mother getting or not getting welfare benefits. These are all legal matters, and they really have a huge impact on people\u2019s lives. The stakes are way too high for bots to be going back and forth and sharing information.<\/p>\n

Do you think that clerks and judges should be using AI the same way lawyers should be? That\u2019s where I would draw the line. I think the clerk should be made to read and interpret everything as humans, and the judges should be made to write everything as humans, but it doesn\u2019t seem like that line has been formalized anywhere.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think a judge should write every line. I think that they could use AI. It\u2019s great when you put concepts in, put the words around that concept and structure them in an orderly way. I think that there is a component of the work that could be done by AI, but it shouldn\u2019t be a bot talking to a bot. I don\u2019t think it should be fully outsourced to AI. You\u2019ve got a responsibility as a judge, as a law clerk, as a lawyer to review that document and make sure it\u2019s actually saying what you intend it to say.I think most attorneys are using it that way. It will create a great draft, maybe at 80 percent, which allows you to do 20 percent of the work. But that 20 percent is the deep, analytical thought work, the things you actually went to law school to do as opposed to what you were describing earlier. It\u2019s going to allow lawyers to do more of that type of work.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m curious to see how different jurisdictions and circuits approach the question of what the judges and clerks should be doing.\u00a0 I sense that that pressure is going to express itself in different ways across the field.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judges are becoming forensic auditors. They\u2019re reviewing this information looking for fake cases. We don\u2019t want them doing that. That should not be their job. I think things do need to change in some of these areas.<\/p>\n

Using AI to catch AI is another theme that comes up on <\/strong>Decoder <\/em><\/strong>all the time.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have utterly forgotten to ask you the <\/strong>Decoder<\/em><\/strong> questions. So let me do that, and then I want to zoom out a little bit farther. These are my own questions. You can tell, I\u2019m a little rusty.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m looking at the LexisNexis leadership structure, it\u2019s very complicated. There\u2019s a CEO who\u2019s not you, Mike Walsh, but then you\u2019re the CEO of the US and the UK. There\u2019s a bunch of other VPs everywhere. You\u2019ve got a parent company called RELX. Explain how LexisNexis is structured and how your part fits into it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

RELX is the parent company, and it\u2019s publicly traded. It has four divisions. Legal and Professional is one of those divisions, and its CEO is Mike Walsh. I report to Mike. I\u2019m the CEO of our North America, UK, and Ireland businesses. The way that we\u2019re organized, it\u2019s a matrix. We go to market based on customer segments. So, we have a large law business, a small law business, a corporate legal business, a federal government business, a state and local government business, a Canadian business, and a UK business.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Then, we have functional groups that support that. So, we have product management, and they\u2019re responsible for our product development roadmap and the product strategy. We have an engineering team, and they take the direction from product management but actually build the products. We have functional groups that support that, finance, HR, legal, and global operations that does things like collect content for us. Once you get used to it, it\u2019s not that complicated of a structure. It\u2019s really well integrated and seamlessly integrated together, which allows us to operate really quickly. We can get things done quickly and efficiently. And I would say that the whole process is customer driven.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m really interested in the structure, particularly the fact that you have the UK, Ireland, and North America. I\u2019m fascinated by corporate structures, and one of the things that strikes me is that you are not in control of the taxonomy of your product, right? These countries\u2019 governments are in control of the taxonomy of their legal systems. <\/strong><\/p>\n

The English legal system and the American legal system have commonalities but wildly different structures. The Canadian legal system and the US legal system have wildly different structures. Canada actually has more in common with the UK given their shared history. How do you think about that? Are those different teams? Do they have different database structures? How does all that work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We do have different teams and different database structures, but we\u2019re actually trying to consolidate to the extent that we can because when we have similar things, we shouldn\u2019t have them marked up differently in different databases. Getting them marked up in a consistent way will allow us to do what we call \u201cextreme reuse,\u201d which is to basically use that same technology we develop in multiple jurisdictions with limited changes to that system. What that allows us to do is really focus on that core system and roll it out quickly, so that everyone across the world gets the benefits of all those changes. But you have civil law in some jurisdictions and common law in others, and the laws are structured in different ways. So, you do have things that make that more challenging, but that\u2019s the general idea behind what we\u2019re trying to do.<\/p>\n

Can you apply the same AI systems to these different legal systems in the same way, or are you actively localizing them differently?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would say that we actively localize them, but we try to minimize the amount of work that we do because a lot of it can be done in a similar way.<\/p>\n

Generally, there\u2019s a lot of concern about American legal precedents traveling across the ocean, particularly in the UK. You can see the American culture war gets exported and shows up in a lot of different ways. Do you think your tool will make that better or worse? If you\u2019re not pulling them apart and are actually trying to minimize the differences, you might see repeat arguments or repeat structures just based on the way the AI works.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Each one is based on the content of the individual jurisdiction. So, we don\u2019t mix the content, but we do try to utilize the same technology. For example, there\u2019s search relevance technology to find the case that\u2019s most closely associated with the matter that someone is working on. We can take that and build it for the US market or the UK market, and then we can move it to another market and it will work pretty well. Then, we need to do some modifications to make it work really well for that particular jurisdiction. We get 80 percent of the DNA transferred over in that core model.<\/p>\n

I was recently <\/strong>talking to Mike Krieger<\/strong><\/a>, who is the chief product officer of Anthropic \u2014 just a totally different conversation on a different thing \u2014 but he said this thing to me, which is stuck in my mind. He said, \u201cI recognize Claude, I can see Claude\u2019s writing.\u201d He said, \u201cThat\u2019s my boy,\u201d which is cute. Does your AI have a personality? Can I recognize its writing in all these different jurisdictions?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We use a multi-model approach, and so it\u2019s probably a little less clear which particular model drove something. Of course with agentic AI, things have really changed. I think that was probably true a year and a half ago, but now with agentic AI, when someone puts in a query\u2026 let\u2019s say they wanted to draft a document. Maybe a client is sending in a request and she\u2019s interested in a premises liability issue around the duty to inform a trespasser about a dangerous condition on a piece of land. The query will go into a planning agent, who will then allocate that query out to other agents.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It needs to do some deep research, so maybe it uses OpenAI o3\u00a0 because it\u2019s really good at deep research. At the end, it needs to draft a document, so maybe it uses Claude 3 Opus, which is really good at drafting. We\u2019re model agnostic, and we\u2019ll use whatever model is best in a particular task. So, the result you get back was actually potentially done by multiple different models, which probably makes it a little bit harder just to see if it was drafted by OpenAI.<\/p>\n

Is that reflected in your structure? You describe engineering, product, and your localization, but you\u2019ve got to build that agentic orchestration layer and decide which models are best for each purpose. You could design an engineering organization around that problem specifically. Is that how you\u2019ve done it or is that done differently?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have an engineering team that focuses on the planner agent and the assignment of the tasks to different agents.<\/p>\n

Is that where the bulk of your investment is or is it paying the token fees?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t actually broken it out that way, so I couldn\u2019t tell you. The token fees are certainly an important part of the investment. Engineering is a huge portion of the investment. The attorneys that we hire to review the output and tell us if it\u2019s good or not good are a massive piece of the investment. So, it\u2019s spread out over many different things, but we\u2019ve certainly spent a lot of money on that particular issue.<\/p>\n

Tell me about those attorneys. You hire attorneys to basically do document review of the AI? Are they very senior attorneys? Are they moonlighting from big firms? Are they a bunch of junior associates in a basement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s based on the task. What we try to do is get attorneys that have experience in a particular matter. So, if we\u2019re looking at documents related to a mergers and acquisitions transaction, we want those to be looked at by someone who has some experience in mergers and acquisitions. They can tell us that the document looks great, or tell us if it\u2019s missing particular things. Then, we can go back and say, \u201cWhy did we miss those particular things and what changes do we need to make to how we\u2019re training and directing these models to correct that situation going forward?\u201d<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the biggest thing you\u2019ve learned from that process?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The biggest thing I\u2019ve learned is how important it is to have attorneys doing that work. I expected to hire a lot of technical people and data scientists to do this work. I didn\u2019t really expect to hire an army of attorneys. But I think one of the secret sauce components of our solution is that our outputs are attorney reviewed. That\u2019s how we keep getting more relevant results.<\/p>\n

Where were you best at to start with and where were you worst at to start with?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

We weren\u2019t really good at anything to begin with, and I think we\u2019re building things out. Sometimes it\u2019s a practice area, sometimes it\u2019s a task. If you look at all the different tasks attorneys do that we were talking about earlier, in many cases the task\u2019s output is some sort of a document. So, we\u2019re really focused right now on how to improve our document drafting.<\/p>\n

Is all this revenue positive yet? Are you making money on all this investment or do you see that on the horizon?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our growth rate is definitely accelerated as a result of this. The main thing that we\u2019re focused on is the customer outcome. What we\u2019re seeing is that the customers are getting happier and happier with the solution, so I would say that it\u2019s been very successful in that regard. It\u2019s the fastest growing product that we\u2019ve ever had.<\/p>\n

Growing fast but losing money with every query is bad, right?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re not there. We\u2019re not losing money with every query.<\/p>\n

Are you breaking even or are you making money?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Out profit is growing.<\/p>\n

Specifically on AI tools, or overall?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most of our investment is in AI tools.<\/p>\n

Let me take the last bit here and zoom out even more broadly. I mentioned that I would bring up precedent again in this conversation.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think if you\u2019re paying attention to the legal system of America right now, you know that it\u2019s pretty much in a state of pure upheaval. You\u2019ve got district court judges calling out the Supreme Court, which is not a thing that usually happens. You have a Supreme Court that is overturning precedents in a way that makes me feel like I learned nothing in law school.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chevron deference is out the door<\/strong><\/a>. <\/strong>Humphrey\u2019s Executor<\/strong><\/a>, the law that keeps the president from <\/strong>firing FTC commissioners<\/strong><\/a> is, I\u2019m guessing, out the door. Roe v. Wade<\/em> was <\/strong>out the door<\/strong><\/a>. Just these foundational precedents of American law out the door.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A lot of that is based on what conservative judges would call originalism. I have a lot of feelings about <\/strong>originalism<\/strong><\/a>, but a big trend inside of originalism is using AI, or what they call \u201ccorpus linguistics,\u201d to determine what people meant in the past. Then, you take the AI and you say, \u201cWell, it did the job for me. This is the answer.\u201d Are you worried that your tools will be used for that kind of effort? Because it really puts a lot of pressure on the AI tool to understand a lot of things.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not that worried. I don\u2019t think the Supreme Court is asking LexisNexis what we think it should do.<\/p>\n

But certainly courts up and down the chain are.<\/strong><\/p>\n

They\u2019re asking legal questions, they\u2019re getting answers back, and then they\u2019re interpreting those answers. We are providing them with the raw content that they need to make the determinations, but we\u2019re not practicing law. We\u2019re not making those decisions for them.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to spring this on you, but here it is: John Bush is a Trump-appointed judge. He cited the emergence of corpus linguistics in the legal field, and <\/strong>he said<\/strong><\/a>, \u201cTo do originalism, I must undertake the highly laborious and time-consuming process of sifting through all this. But what if AI were employed to do all the review of the hits and compile statistics on word meeting and usage? If the AI could be trusted, that would make the job much easier.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

That is him saying, \u201cI can outsource originalist thinking to an AI.\u201d This is a trend. I see this particularly with the originalist judges, that the job they think they\u2019re meant to do is determine what a word meant in the past. And AI is great at being like, \u201cStatistically, this is what that word meant in the past, and we\u2019re going to outsource some legal reasoning.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is, I think, very odd. My thoughts about originalism and <\/strong>stare decisis<\/strong><\/a> in America in 2025 aside, saying, \u201cI will use an AI to reach into the past and determine this meaning\u201d seems very odd. I\u2019m wondering how you feel about your tool being used in that way.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I definitely understand your point there. I think about the analogy of a brick. You can use a brick to build a hospital and take care of sick children, or you could take a brick and throw it through a window. One use is really great and another is pretty negative, but in either case, it\u2019s a brick. I think about our tool as being neither good nor bad. I think it could be used for good. I think it could be used for any type of activity that attorneys [need]. I wouldn\u2019t want to say originalism is a bad thing. I think it could be used for many different things. I think it could be used for originalism. I think it could be helpful for those who want to take that path and find a new way of looking at something.<\/p>\n

We have all the data. They can search it, they can use the tool to find things it wasn\u2019t possible to find in the past. So, I could see them using our tool in that way. I guess it\u2019s up to the attorneys to determine how they\u2019re going to use the product. We\u2019re not building it because we\u2019re trying to change the law. We\u2019re building it because we\u2019re trying to help attorneys do the tasks that they want to do.<\/p>\n

But I look at the sweep of the tech industry \u2014 not the legal industry, but the tech industry \u2014 over the past 15 to 20 years, and boy, have I heard that answer many, many times. The social media companies all said, \u201cWell, you can use it for good or evil. We\u2019re neutral platforms.\u201d It turns out maybe they should have thought of some of those harms earlier.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Look at the AI companies today. Who knows if training is copyrighted. We know the answer. You can\u2019t actually just opt out of copyright law. Now, we\u2019re going to do the lawsuits and we\u2019ll see what happens. Who knows if OpenAI doing Sora, which is TikTok for deepfakes \u2014 actually, we know. We know the answer is, you should have some guardrails.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

So, I\u2019m posing you the same question. We see a particularly originalist judiciary hell-bent on using originalism to change precedent at alarming rates. I would say it\u2019s alarming for me because I paid for a law degree that I now think is useless, but that\u2019s why it\u2019s alarming to me. It\u2019s alarming because a lot of people have had their rights taken away as well. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Every day this is happening. And one of the ways they\u2019re going to do that is to defer to an AI decision engine. They\u2019re going to say, \u201cWe asked the AI, \u2018What did \u201call people\u201d mean when the 14th Amendment was drafted?\u2019\u201d and this will be how we get to <\/strong>a birthright citizenship case<\/strong><\/a>. I\u2019m just connecting this to the conversation we had at the beginning. We\u2019re going to give our reasoning to a computer in a way that it\u2019s not necessarily accountable for, and we\u2019re going to trust the computer. The methods of thinking and that rigor might go away.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

So I\u2019ve heard the answer that the tool is neutral from tech companies for years, and I\u2019ve seen the outcomes. I\u2019m asking you. You\u2019re building a tech product for lawyers, and they\u2019re already using it in this specific way. I\u2019m wondering if you\u2019ve thought about the guardrails.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We operate under responsible AI principles, and that includes a number of things. One, we always try to consider the real-world implications of any product we develop. We want to make sure that there\u2019s transparency in terms of how our product works. We open up the black box so people can see the logic that we\u2019re using, and they can actually go in and change it if they want. So, we want to make sure that there\u2019s transparency and there\u2019s control.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We always incorporate human oversight into product development. Privacy and security is another one of our core tenets in responsible AI creation. Another thing we\u2019ve incorporated is the prevention of bias introduction. So, those are the RELX principles for AI development, and we adhere to those. We want to create products that do good things for the world.<\/p>\n

If you asked Lexis AI if the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to all people born in the United States, will it make the argument that it doesn\u2019t?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve never asked it that question. I can\u2019t tell you.<\/p>\n

Do you have your phone on you? There\u2019s a mobile app.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I could pop up here and ask it, I suppose. Let me pop into Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 here. \u201cDoes the 14th Amendment guarantee birthright citizenship or are there exceptions?\u201d Let\u2019s see.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s generating a response, so we can come back to it in a minute.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m very curious to see what it says, because up until recently there\u2019s only been one answer to that question. Now, the Trump administration is saying, \u201cNope, actually, that\u2019s not what \u2018subject to the jurisdiction thereof\u2019 means.\u201d In order to win at the Supreme Court, they will <\/strong>have<\/em><\/strong> to construct an originalist argument to that question, and I am confident that the way they\u2019re going to do that is by feeding a bunch of data into an AI model and saying, \u201cThis is what was actually meant at the time of the 14th Amendment\u2019s drafting.\u201d That\u2019s a thing that AI will be used for that is very destructive.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not an attorney, so I\u2019m just going to read the answer here:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction. The phrase \u2018subject to its jurisdiction\u2019 has been interpreted to include nearly all individuals born on US soil with a few narrow exceptions. These exceptions include foreign diplomats, children of foreign diplomats, children of enemy forces in hostile occupation, children born on foreign public ships, and, historically, children of members of Native American tribes who owed allegiance to their tribe rather than the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

It goes on.<\/p>\n

You should send that to [Chief Justice] John Roberts right now. Can Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 do that? Because that\u2019s the answer.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question is, are a bunch of conservative influencers going to say Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 is woke now? This is the cultural war that you\u2019re in.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It does recognize that \u201crecent cases have affirmed this interpretation rejecting attempts to expand the exceptions of birthright citizenship,\u201d so it does also recognize that there have been efforts to interpret it differently. The answer goes on quite a bit.<\/p>\n

The reason I ask that question very specifically is because Reconstruction is up for grabs in a very real way in this case. Do you think you have a responsibility as the tool maker? That\u2019s really the question for so many AI companies. You\u2019re the tool maker. Do you have a responsibility to not deepfake real people? Do you have a responsibility to not show people fake ideas? I think you were very clear on that, you have a responsibility to not hallucinate, but here you have \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

We don\u2019t want to introduce or perpetuate any bias that might exist either. And to do that, we rely on the law as opposed to a consumer-grade model that probably just uses news articles, which might have a very different interpretation of things depending on the news articles. There are much more likely to be biases from introduced news articles than black-letter law, for example.<\/p>\n

The reason I\u2019m curious about that is because there\u2019s a spectrum. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any place for telling people what they can do with Microsoft Word running locally on their laptop. Do what you\u2019ve got to do. Telling people what they can do with a consumer-grade AI tool built into Facebook? I think Facebook has a lot of responsibility there, especially because the opportunity to distribute that content far and wide is at their fingertips.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a big opportunity spectrum, and here in the middle there\u2019s these AI companies. Do you have the obligation to say, \u201cWell, if you want to go make the argument that birthright citizenship doesn\u2019t protect everyone in the United States, you\u2019ve got to do that on your own. Our robot\u2019s not going to help you.\u201d Do you feel any of that pressure?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We try not to get into politics or any of that debate.<\/p>\n

I do not think that\u2019s politics.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re trying to develop a system that does not have bias introduced into it, that will give you the facts, and attorneys can do the work that attorneys do to make those important decisions. Our job is to give them the information that they need: the precedents, the facts, all the information that they need to then develop their argument, whatever that might be. But we really don\u2019t get into any of the politics of birthright citizenship being guaranteed or not.<\/p>\n

Well, at some point you do. This is \u2014 again, to bring us back where we started, I first encountered LexisNexis as a database of cases and some case notes. There were some law professors who were very proud that their case notes were in LexisNexis when I was in law school. Now we\u2019re drafting a little bit, going to go do the research. Now we have a agentic AI that\u2019s making the arguments. Maybe one day we will automate all the way to filing. You\u2019re taking on more of the burden. You are making the arguments. The company is making the arguments. Where is the line? Because there are lots of lawyers who wouldn\u2019t take that case, who wouldn\u2019t make that argument. Is there a line for you?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would say our approach is to arm the attorneys with the best possible information, and help them with the drafting of those documents. We\u2019re really just being led by our customers and what they\u2019re asking us to do. We certainly are not trying to interpret the law. We\u2019re not trying to shape the legal system. We\u2019re not lawyers. We\u2019re not trying to do the work of lawyers. We\u2019re trying to help lawyers do the work they do in a more efficient way and, hopefully, help them drive better outcomes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s always their prerogative to interpret the information that we provide, which is what lawyers do. That\u2019s what they\u2019re great at. The reason we have cases is because there are people on both sides. The two individuals are going to make opposite arguments, we want to support both of those attorneys as best that we can.<\/p>\n

I get it when you\u2019re the database of cases. I get it when you\u2019re the word processor. I get it when you\u2019re the specialized word processor or the case management platform. The thing that I\u2019m pushing on repeatedly here is if the AI system is actually doing the work, do you feel like you have different guardrails?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think our responsibility is to develop AI in a responsible way.<\/p>\n

Give me an example of something you wouldn\u2019t let your AI do \u2014 an argument that you wouldn\u2019t let your AI make, or a motion that you wouldn\u2019t let your AI draft.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know that we would want to necessarily restrict the AI in that way. We\u2019re referring back to the information that we have, which is our authoritative collection of documents and materials that helps lawyers understand what the facts are, what the precedent is, and what the background is, so they can do the real, deep legal work and make those trade-off decisions, judgment decisions, the important things that, again, attorneys went to law school to do.<\/p>\n

I think these questions are going to come up over and over again. We should have you back to answer them as you learn more. As you look out over the horizon \u2014 the next two or three years \u2014 what\u2019s the next set of capabilities you see for LexisNexis, and what do you think the pressures that might change how you make some of those decisions will be?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to say exactly what the main thing that\u2019s going to change the path going forward is going to look like because if I look back two years ago, I would\u2019ve never guessed we\u2019d be doing what we\u2019re doing today because the technology didn\u2019t exist or it was too expensive to implement. That\u2019s totally changed over the last two years, and I think over the next two years, it\u2019s going to change again. So, it\u2019s really hard to say where we\u2019re going to go. <\/p>\n

Our vision remains the same, which is that we want to help attorneys. We want to provide them with a personalized, AI-powered product that understands their practice area, their jurisdiction. It has access to our authoritative set of materials and their prior work product. It understands their preferences, it understands their style, it understands what they\u2019re trying to do, and it can automate tasks that they do today manually.<\/p>\n

We will continue to take that latest available technology, show it to our customers, and have them help us understand how we can use that technology to serve them in more modern and relevant ways. That\u2019s really what\u2019s going to guide our roadmap in the future.<\/p>\n

Sean, this was great. Let me know when you develop a system that can actually navigate an electronic case filing website because some of the smartest people I know can\u2019t do that. But this was great. We\u2019ve got to have you back soon. Thank you so much.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thank you so much. I really enjoyed our time today. Take care.<\/p>\n

Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!<\/sub><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today, I\u2019m talking with Sean Fitzpatrick, the CEO of LexisNexis, one of the most important companies in the entire legal […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.actutech.app\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}