The Legal Implications Of Gen AI

The sweeping rise of generative AI is rapidly transforming every facet of the professional world—and the legal sector is no exception. But while much of the public conversation around Gen AI centers on innovation and disruption, for the legal community, the stakes are particularly nuanced. At the intersection of innovation and responsibility stands Nick Sarokhanian, Chair of the AI Practice at Barnes & Thornburg. In a recent interview, Sarokhanian offered a deeply informed, refreshingly pragmatic view of how Gen AI is reshaping the legal landscape—from internal firm policies to external client counsel, and from today’s ethical gray areas to tomorrow’s courtroom battles.

Building A Legal AI Powerhouse 

Barnes & Thornburg’s AI practice is a multidisciplinary unit comprising more than 70 attorneys across the U.S., spanning specialties from intellectual property and commercial litigation to labor and employment. What began as a focused initiative has evolved into a broad, firmwide commitment to helping clients responsibly navigate Gen AI.

Sarokhanian, a commercial litigator who also studied computer science, stepped into the leadership role less than a year ago and has since helped shepherd the group into a cohesive force. “The use cases of generative AI are nearly limitless,” he said, “and the legal implications mirror that complexity. That’s why our approach needs to be equally expansive.”

Navigating Ethical Minefields Internally 

Internally, Barnes & Thornburg’s path to Gen AI adoption has been deliberately cautious yet encouraging. The firm began with interim guidance and has now implemented a full policy that Sarokhanian describes as “moderate but open.” The cornerstone? A whitelist of vetted Gen AI tools approved from an information security standpoint—and an uncompromising commitment to client consent.

Before any attorney or staff member can use Gen AI tools in relation to client work, explicit written consent is mandatory. This is not a mere formality. It reflects deep ethical concerns within the legal community about inadvertent data exposure, especially in systems where user input could be used to train future AI models.

Sarokhanian emphasized the foundational importance of data privacy and security. “Even after a client is no longer a client—or even if they’ve passed away—confidences must be kept in perpetuity,” he noted. “And that’s something we take extremely seriously.”

Real-World Client Concerns, Real-Time Legal Challenges 

Sarokhanian’s practice doesn’t only focus on internal governance; a growing part of his work involves helping clients formulate Gen AI governance frameworks of their own. And the issues his clients are confronting cover a wide spectrum.

On one end are practical, efficiency-driven applications—clients exploring whether Gen AI can streamline patent application drafting or simplify regulatory compliance documentation. On the other end are thorny legal questions: What happens when AI-generated music edges too close to copyrighted material? Can AI-transcribed conversations on Zoom or Teams become discoverable evidence in litigation? What obligations arise from AI features embedded in enterprise software?

“The devil’s in the details,” Sarokhanian said. “We’re seeing interest from all sectors—medical device manufacturers, entertainment companies, even government contractors. Everyone’s trying to deploy Gen AI in a way that’s safe, cost-effective, and legally sound.”

And therein lies the rub. Despite widespread interest, many companies remain ill-prepared. Referencing insights from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Sarokhanian shared a striking anecdote: A senior executive from a top consultancy revealed that only about 10% of their clients were operationally ready to deploy Gen AI. “That’s a staggering gap between aspiration and implementation,” he said.

Business Models In Flux And The Evolution Of Legal Ethics 

One of the most intriguing implications of Gen AI in law involves billing. The American Bar Association’s position is unambiguous: if Gen AI enables a task to be done in one hour instead of ten, only one hour should be billed. Sarokhanian sees this as both a challenge and an opportunity.

“It forces us to reevaluate how we deliver value,” he explained. “Our hope is that by handling lower-value work faster, we can focus more time on strategic, high-value advice.” In other words, the future lawyer isn’t replaced by Gen AI—but becomes more valuable because of it.

Still, this shift upends traditional revenue models. How do firms reconcile reduced billable hours with profitability? What kinds of services become flat-fee or subscription-based? These are open questions, but Sarokhanian believes efficiency and transparency will ultimately win out.

Looking Ahead: From Explorers To Experts 

When asked about the next two to three years, Sarokhanian sees two major trajectories. First, a wave of litigation directly tied to Gen AI tools. While today’s legal disputes largely involve copyright and IP issues, future cases may center around failed AI implementations, breached contracts, or negligent deployment.

“We’re still two to three years away from the majority of AI-related litigation,” he predicted. “But it’s coming. You’ll see companies suing over failed AI systems, overpromised functionality, and violations of AI governance contracts.”

Second, he expects the legal profession itself to become more familiar and comfortable with Gen AI. But adoption won’t be universal. “Lawyers are inherently conservative and slow to change. We’re not going to see ubiquity anytime soon. But in the next few years, it’ll become much more normalized to use AI for drafting early versions of documents or for discovery assistance.”

Sarokhanian champions a dual mindset for legal professionals: become both an expert and an explorer. “If you’re an expert, AI helps you move faster and smarter. If you’re not, it’s an incredible exploration tool.” He sees promise in both roles—and insists that firsthand experience is the only path to competency.

Gen AI As A Catalyst For Judgment-Driven Law 

Despite the buzz around automation, Sarokhanian makes a crucial distinction. “Our judgment is what differentiates us as lawyers,” he said. “AI might help write the first draft, but it’s the legal intuition—the seasoned understanding of risk, precedent, and context—that still makes our work valuable.”

Ultimately, the legal implications of Gen AI aren’t just about compliance or cost-savings. They’re about responsibility. As firms like Barnes & Thornburg work to balance technological optimism with ethical caution, they’re helping to shape not just policy—but the profession itself.

And for those still sitting on the sidelines, Sarokhanian offers a final piece of advice: start small, start safe—but start now. “You’ll be surprised what it can do. But more importantly, you’ll be better prepared for what’s coming.”

Have you read?
The World’s Best Medical Schools.
The World’s Best Universities.
The World’s Best International High Schools.
The World’s Best Business Schools.
The World’s Best Fashion Schools.
The World’s Best Hospitality And Hotel Management Schools.