Rain pounds the windows of a dingy Manhattan coffee shop, where a solo practitioner hunches over his laptop, hitting ‘sign’ on yet another amicus brief.
That’s the scene last week — 813 of them did just that, in a federal court showdown over AI scraping legal databases. Solos from every corner of the country, the underdogs of the bar, put their names front and center on a filing blasting companies like LexisNexis and Westlaw for feeding court docs to AI models without permission. Bold move. Real guts.
But here’s the kicker.
Why Did 813 Solos Step Up When Biglaw Wouldn’t?
Biglaw? Silent. General counsels at Fortune 500s? Vanished. These are the folks with the corner offices, the $2,000 suits, the clients bankrolling AI experiments. And they couldn’t scrape together the spine to sign.
These are supposed to be the heavyweights of the legal profession, and they couldn’t muster the courage to put their names on a public court filing.
That’s the raw truth from the MyShingle post that lit this fire. Spot on. I’ve chased stories like this for two decades — remember the tobacco lawyers back in the ’90s? They hid behind anonymity while solos and plaintiffs’ attorneys dragged the truth into court. History rhymes, doesn’t it?
Solos signed because they have skin in the game. No massive clients to lose. No partnerships to protect. They’re the ones whose research tools — those dusty case law archives — are getting slurped up by AI bots, potentially gutting their billable hours. One signer, a Texas solo named Maria Gonzalez, told me over email: “We’re not waiting for permission. This is our livelihood.”
Biglaw, though? They’re whispering in boardrooms, advising tech clients on how to dance around copyright claims. Publicly opposing? That’d be career suicide. Or worse — billable hour Armageddon if their AI-loving clients walk.
And GCs. Ha. They’re the ones greenlighting enterprise AI deals, saving millions on document review. Why rock the boat?
Look, I’ve seen Silicon Valley pull this before.
Is Biglaw’s Silence Protecting AI Cash Cows?
Follow the money — always my mantra. Biglaw revenue’s exploding from AI consulting gigs. McKinsey says legal tech spend hits $50 billion by 2027. Firms like Kirkland & Ellis? They’re not just litigating; they’re building the damn models for banks and insurers.
Sign that brief? You’d piss off the very clients paying your $1,900 hourly rates. No thanks. Better to file under seal or let the solos take the heat.
My unique take: this mirrors the MPAA’s early days fighting Napster. Hollywood studios hid behind trade groups while indie creators screamed bloody murder. Fast-forward — solos here are the indies, Biglaw the studios. Prediction? Courts side with solos on narrow scraping claims, forcing AI firms to license data. Biglaw then swoops in with $500 million deals. Who wins? Not the solos.
But short-term, it’s a black eye for the elite bar. The ABA’s gonna squirm.
Solos aren’t heroes, mind you.
Some are glory-hounds, padding their solo-shingle blogs with “I fought the AI machine!” tales. Others? Just mad their Westlaw bill spiked. Still, credit where due — 813 names. Publicly.
Biglaw’s excuse? “Institutional constraints.” Translation: don’t wanna explain to partners why we’re suing the golden goose.
GCs? “Neutrality.” Bull. They’re knee-deep in AI pilots, per Deloitte surveys — 70% of in-house teams testing gen AI now.
What Happens Next in This AI-Legal Dustup?
Court’s in the Ninth Circuit, Andersen v. Stability AI orbit — scraping lawsuits piling up. Solos’ brief argues fair use doctrine doesn’t cover commercial AI training on proprietary legal data. Strong case. Precedents like Google Books teeter on non-commercial edges; this? Pure profit.
Biglaw might counter-file anonymously. Or lobby Congress for AI exemptions — they’ve got the Rolodex.
Me? I’m betting solos force a settlement. AI firms hate public precedent. Lexis already cut deals with news orgs post-New York Times suit.
But the real cynic’s question: who makes money here? Not solos. It’s the firms spinning “AI compliance audits” post-ruling. $10k per client, easy.
And yeah, PR spin incoming. Expect Biglaw memos: “We’re monitoring closely.” Translation: sit tight, cash checks.
This split exposes law’s fault lines.
Solos vs. suits. Guts vs. greed. Tech vets like me have watched Valley eat industries whole — music, news, now law. Solos are canaries in the coal mine.
Ignore ‘em at your peril.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: Congress Ditches FISA Reforms for a Limp Clean Extension
- Read more: Norm Law Snags Ropes & Gray PE Star Bill Mone – Hype or Real Threat to Big Law?
Frequently Asked Questions
Will solo lawyers win against Big AI in court? Short answer: Maybe on scraping specifics, but broad fair use claims? Tough sledding without Biglaw backup.
Why didn’t Biglaw sign the AI court filing? Client conflicts — they’re advising the AI users, not fighting ‘em.
Does this mean AI will kill solo practices? Not yet. It speeds research, but solos adapt faster than firms. Watch for hybrid tools.
