Stay in the know
Receive timely insights and briefings from HSF Kramer, tailored to keep you informed and ahead
Subscribe now
9 Juli 2026
Insight
This series is anchored around operationalising AI in complex disputes, while also exploring topics with broader relevance for legal functions.
Themes include the “misdiagnosis” effect - the importance of identifying the right solution for a problem rather than starting with the technology, and the critical role of structured data.
It is aimed at GCs and senior in-house lawyers (particularly those operating in heavily regulated industries) and offers a practical, myth-busting perspective on legal technology and GenAI. Each episode is designed to cut through the noise and explores how technology is being applied in legal work today: what’s delivering real value, what isn’t, and what is often misunderstood.
Colleagues from across our Digital Legal Delivery team, alongside occasional guests from the London Disputes practice, share their insights and experiences, unpacking where AI is making a genuine impact, where established automation and workflow design remain part of the solution, and why not every “AI problem” requires an AI-only answer.
Through real-world examples, candid insights and grounded guidance, the series helps clients navigate the rapidly evolving legal tech landscape with confidence.
Latest Episode
Episode 2: eDiscovery in 2026: GenAI Disruption or TAR Reinforcement?
In this episode, we step back from our case study (covered in Episode 1 Parts One and Two) to address a key question: how does GenAI compare to technology-assisted review (TAR)?
David Beck (Head of eDiscovery UK & EMEA), Meghan Ryan (Senior Manager, eDiscovery) and Danbee Kim (Head of Digital Legal, US) cut through the hype to explore how these technologies work in practice. They examine why TAR remains central to large-scale review - particularly for precision, consistency and defensibility - and where GenAI adds value, including contextual insight and early case analysis.
Drawing on real-world experience, they show why GenAI is often reinforcing (not replacing) TAR, and reframe the debate around a more practical question: what is the right approach for the matter, the data and the client?
Previous Episodes
Episode 1, Part 1: Gen AI in Legal Practice - a case study
Partners Lyn Harris (Digital Legal Delivery) and Ajay Malhotra (Disputes) move beyond the hype to examine a live English High Court litigation matter, where Relativity aiR for Review was used to support first-level document review.
They explore how the technology was applied in practice, the governance and human oversight underpinning defensibility, and the key lessons from deploying GenAI at scale in a high-stakes dispute.
Episode 1, Part 2: Gen AI in Legal Practice - a case study
In this follow-on episode, Caoimhe Powell (Director, Disputes - Digital Legal Delivery) and Ariel Wiebe (Associate, Disputes) focus on one of the most critical aspects of applying GenAI in legal review: prompting.
Building on a live High Court disclosure exercise, they explore how prompt design directly shapes the quality, consistency and defensibility of outcomes—framing prompting as a core legal skill grounded in judgment. The discussion highlights the iterative nature of prompting in practice, from testing and validation through to refinement at scale, and the importance of lawyer oversight in translating legal reasoning into clear, consistent criteria.
Key contacts
Lyn Harris
Managing Partner, Belfast office, Belfast
Caoimhe Powell
Director, Digital Legal Delivery, UK, US & EMEA, Belfast
Stephanie Barrett
Director, Digital Legal Delivery, UK, US & EMEA, London
David Beck
Head of eDiscovery, Digital Legal Delivery, UK, US & EMEA, London
Legal Notice
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only and may not be current as at the date of accessing this publication. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
© Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer 2026