I build systems that encode legal reasoning into repeatable workflows: authority selection, risk classification, documentation, review, and escalation.
The next decade of legal practice will not be defined by AI tools. It will be defined by the practitioners who design how AI is applied within the law.
Most attorneys will be users. They will learn the products, deploy them in client work, and treat AI as a productivity layer that lives outside their actual reasoning. A small number will be designers. They will encode legal reasoning into the systems themselves, define what those systems should consider authoritative, and shape how AI engages with regulatory law, agency precedent, and the practical work of running a legal program at scale.
The distinction is not academic. Users and designers operate at different points in the value chain. Users absorb tools. Designers shape what tools become.
I sit in the second group.
The firms that will lead the next decade of legal hiring will recognize this distinction early. They will hire designers, not users. They will build legal functions on architecture that anticipates what AI is becoming, not what it was.
Trained in intellectual property and information technology law at Fordham. Production environment: business immigration. Building at the intersection.