After attempting to amend its first-in-the-nation AI law for two years and three legislative sessions, on May 9, 2026, the Colorado legislature passed SB 26-189. It now awaits the governor’s signature and is expected to be signed into law, which will go into effect January 1, 2027.
Of Counsel Janine Anthony Bowen co-authored an article for Mealey’s® Litigation Report: Artificial Intelligence titled “Comparing U.S. and EU AI Legislation: Divergent Regulatory Approaches and Practical Governance Implications.” Published in May 2026, the article analyzes how consumer protection principles inform AI regulation in the U.S., while the EU has a framework that includes product safety,
This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Keith Maziarek, founder of Lucratic Method and Bodhi Solutions, about the shifting economics of legal work, AI’s impact on pricing, and why law firms and clients need better commercial conversations. Keith brings more than two decades of experience in pricing, profitability, legal project management, and business-of-law strategy from firms including DLA Piper, Perkins Coie, and Katten. His new consulting work focuses on aligning client value with law firm operations, a topic gaining urgency as AI changes how legal work gets produced, measured, and priced.
Keith argues the legal industry has spent too much time asking what technology firms use, while ignoring how economic models, client expectations, and service delivery structures support the work. For him, the problem is less about whether BigLaw is broken and more about both firms and clients being “tone deaf” to each other’s business realities. Firms talk about realization rates. Clients talk about cutting spend. The better conversation starts with mutual value, risk, predictability, staffing, and clarity around which work deserves premium treatment and which work should be systematized.
The discussion turns directly to generative AI and the mistaken assumption that faster work must always mean cheaper work. Keith makes an important distinction between routine, high-volume work and complex, high-stakes legal matters. AI will reduce variance and improve budget predictability in many workflows, especially where tasks are repeatable and pattern-based. But in complex work, AI’s greater value might come from better preparation, broader analysis, and stronger outcomes, rather than dramatic cost reduction. The Neil Katyal Supreme Court preparation example gives this point a useful frame. AI might not reduce time, but it might improve judgment.
Keith also explores how AI will reshape law firm staffing and leverage. Fewer junior associates might be needed for some traditional tasks, but firms will need more data professionals, technologists, process experts, and other allied professionals to make AI-driven work reliable. This raises hard questions about associate development, talent pipelines, compensation, and the future shape of the partnership model. The old pyramid might narrow into something closer to a specialized team, with carefully selected lawyers and business professionals working together around data, process, and client value.
The episode closes with Keith’s view of the next phase of legal transformation. Firms are still experimenting, but the experimental period will give way to sharper questions about revenue models, profitability, AI-enabled service delivery, and whether certain work belongs inside the firm, with an ALSP, or in a hybrid model. His crystal ball points toward a market where firms with mature commercial thinking gain ground, while firms slow to rethink pricing, staffing, and process risk falling behind. As Keith suggests throughout the conversation, the future of legal work is not only about smarter tools. It is about whether firms learn to run better businesses.
Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Substack
[Special Thanks to Legal Technology Hub for their sponsoring this episode.]
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: Jerry David DeCicca
Transcript:
When shareholder oppression is real but dissolution is too much, should courts give majority owners a chance to straighten out before imposing the corporate death penalty?
Nonprofits often point to their mission, their values, and their vision as the reasons for their existence. Under the purpose-driven board leadership (PDBL) model, these three characteristics set an organization’s purpose. We’ve written several posts on mission, including this one – The Mission Statement: Some New Thoughts. In an earlier post in this
Editor’s Note: Akamai’s reported $1.8 billion, seven-year compute commitment from an unnamed frontier model provider — identified by Bloomberg and The Information as Anthropic — surfaces a procurement question many legal-AI buyers have not yet been asked: which upstream cloud actually runs your vendor’s Claude inference, and what happens when the answer is “all of
Someone asked me recently what the difference will be between the LexBlog Library and Perma.cc.
Perma.cc and the LexBlog Library are complementary. The purpose of each is to satisfy one fundamental need in legal research and legal citation. That being that a researcher can always “find and verify” a cited source.
They tackle digital preservation
Editor’s Note: ShinyHunters’ Thursday defacement of Canvas login pages and its May 12 leak deadline have moved an education-sector breach from disclosure into demand. The criminal extortion group claims 275 million records and 3.65 terabytes pulled from about 9,000 schools — a scope that, if even a fraction holds, would rival or eclipse anything the
Just as Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is under study at the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (I review my appearance yesterday in this post) U.S. Congressional leaders have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree warning that the bill threatens to harm “U.S. national security and
Editor’s Note: The EU’s biggest AI rules just got their first major reset, pending formal adoption. In the early hours of May 7, 2026, Council and Parliament negotiators landed a provisional agreement on the Digital Omnibus on AI that, if adopted before the original deadline, would push Annex III high-risk obligations from Aug. 2, 2026,