“AI will not replace lawyers, but lawyers that use AI will replace lawyers who don’t.”– Michael McCready
On today’s Legally Speaking Podcast, sponsored by Clio, I’m delighted to be joined by Michael McCready. Michael is the founder and managing partner of McCready Law, an experienced trial lawyer and a strong advocate for legal technology and innovation. In our discussion today, he explores how AI can support jury research, personalise courtroom arguments, simulate mock juries and improve trial preparation. However, he also warns of significant risks involving bias, juror privacy, confidentiality and AI-generated misinformation, emphasising the need for clear policies, staff training and human oversight. He also highlights AI’s potential to improve access to justice by helping smaller firms and under-resourced lawyers compete more effectively.
So why should you be listening in?
You can hear Rob and Michael discussing:
– Personalising courtroom arguments using AI
– Protecting juror privacy during AI research
– Identifying and reducing bias in jury selection
– Ensuring human oversight and accountability
– Improving trial preparation through AI.
Connect with Michael McCready here – https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-mccready/
Transcript
Michael McCready (00:00)
Jury selection’s goal is to get a good cross-section of people from the community that can sit in judgment and make a decision on a civil matter. I think that AI is extremely helpful once you know who your jury is, those six or twelve people, that you can put that generic information that we get, you can put that into AI and then tailor your message.
In your court case, in a way that may resonate more with them. If you don’t think that someone in your firm is using AI, you are sadly mistaken. Someone in your firm is using AI, whether you know it or not, it’s your obligation to make sure that your entire staff understands confidentiality and privacy settings on whatever they use.
Robert Hanna (00:49)
On today’s Legally Speaking podcast, sponsored by Clio, I’m joined by Michael McCready. Michael is the founder and managing partner of McCready Law, a multi-state personal injury firm. He has grown from Chicago into a team of 20 lawyers and more than 180 professionals across the Midwest. He has spent over 30 years as a practicing attorney, trial lawyer, law firm leader, and legal technology advocate, and is the author of Built to Run: Designing a Business That Thrives Without You.
From building law firm websites in the 1990s to advising on AI adoption today, Michael has consistently been ahead of the curve. He also serves on the Washu Laws AI Advisory Board, helping shape the future of legal innovation and responsible AI in law. Today we’re asking a huge question should AI help select jurors? Because when algorithms enter the jury box, we’re no longer just talking about efficiency, we’re talking about fairness, privacy, bias, human judgment, and
Future of Justice. Michael, a very warm welcome to the show.
Michael McCready (01:49)
Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.
Robert Hanna (01:52)
it’s an absolute pleasure to have you on the show. And before we dive into all the great things you’re doing in and around the world of lore, we have a couple of icebreaker questions. Firstly, what’s your favourite beverage and what’s your preferred choice of footwear on a typical work day?
Michael McCready (02:06)
Well, my choice of beverage, I am actually a W set three wine educator. I teach wine appreciation classes, so my my drink of choice has to be wine. don’t ask me my favorite is like asking me my favorite child. and then I don’t know if you knew this and that’s the reason you’re asking, but for the last two years I’ve been living and running my law firm in Puerto Rico. So my choice of footwear is either barefoot or flip flops.
Robert Hanna (02:34)
Love it, great choices. Okay, and then to tech now. What’s one piece of legal technology you saw and thought this could genuinely change the profession?
Michael McCready (02:44)
Sure, there was a i it came out, it was originally called Infusion Soft. I think they changed the name to Keep, but it was one of the first CRMs. And you could program out you know, automated sequences and decision trees. And I I just went down a rabbit hole and and and used it to program so many different processes. and and and th those techniques are still in use today, even though the program’s not.
Robert Hanna (03:12)
Yeah, absolutely. And that leads nicely onto your your journey and I’m really looking forward to today, Michael. So could you give us a short overview of your career and what first drew you into law?
Michael McCready (03:22)
I
worked for a law firm for about four years. I was a partner, but I was always gonna start my own firm. So in 1999, I took the step. you know, just myself, a briefcase, and before cellulophones. and the firm has just grown. So since 1999, we now have 24 lawyers and a team of 180 professionals. we’re in seven states and thirteen offices. So
press a lot of a lot of hard work in between those years and that’s where I am today.
Robert Hanna (03:56)
Yeah, and and so let’s stick with that then. What has it been like building and scaling a very multi state personal injury firm? What’s it taught you about innovation, particularly within legal practice?
Michael McCready (04:06)
Well, listen, law school and and practicing law teaches you how to be a lawyer. It does not prepare you on how to run a business. And I was a really good lawyer, but I am a better managing partner. And when I decided to step away from actively handling cases and and just be the managing partner and the mentor and and the entrepreneur and the and the face of the firm, you know, that’s when the firm really expanded.
allowed me to be the visionary, and I’ve got really smart people that work for me, top to bottom, and and that’s been my journey.
Robert Hanna (04:44)
Yeah, absolutely. Getting the right talent in and around you to help drive the firm forward. Couldn’t agree more. But you’ve been ahead of the curve. you’ve been adopting law firm technology long before it became very fashionable. And of course we’ll talk about AI as we we go through the discussion. But where did that mindset come from in terms of, you know, looking forwards and embracing tech?
Michael McCready (05:04)
it was largely just out of curiosity and became a hobby. So when my kids were little, they’d go to bed at seven, eight o’clock at night. I’ve never been much of a TV person, and I started delving into you know websites. I taught myself HTML coding. I told you about, you know, learning how to work a CRM and and you know twenty five years later you know those skills have translated through
all the changes in tech. and I’ve just stayed ahead and and and really kept abreast of all the new things that are coming out. And I you know I it it’s I just geek out on this stuff, right? I love technology. And so you know how is my firm so technologically forward? Well it starts with me, right? And and I’m the one who makes sure that the technology that we that we adapt adopt works best for the firm.
And our clients.
Robert Hanna (06:03)
And I think it’s responsible leadership, particularly in the world that we live in today, to be that that way looking forwards because, you know, people are going to continue to adopt this technology and having that mindset from from years in the past and that sort of history repeating itself, you clearly are going to be able to propel yourself more and more forwards. One thing we talk a lot about on the show and we’re passionate about is access to justice. So I want to talk a little bit now, a bit of a segue about jury selection. So for our UK and international listeners, why is jury selection such a critical part of the US justice system?
Michael McCready (06:33)
Want to differentiate between criminal and civil cases. Okay, so most of the world has got the right to a jury trial for criminal cases, but the United States is an outlier and allows a jury trial for a civil case. and that’s a little bit unusual. And and and people around the world aren’t aren’t accustomed to that. So it’s enshrined in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, the right to a jury trial in a civil case.
And a jury has always been viewed as the great equalizer, right? You can you can be just a a small ordinary person and take on the biggest, most powerful corporations in the world, and the the six or twelve civil jurors are the equalizer. And and that from my perspective and and my law firm, it it’s it’s the bedrock of what we do is is stand up for
individuals against insurance companies and corporations and we use the right to a jury, to give us that leverage.
Robert Hanna (07:38)
Yeah, a and you’re obviously doing a tremendous job with the work that you’re doing, hence the growth that you’ve seen and, all of the great feedback you’ve been getting. So lawyers have obviously been have researched potential jurors for years and years. I don’t think there’s anything new when it comes to that. What kind of juror research has traditionally been seen as a legitimate part of the preparation?
Michael McCready (07:58)
Listen, jury selection is much more of an art than a science, okay? And anyone who tells you otherwise is probably trying to sell you something. it’s it it so jury selection is where the lawyers get to ask potential jurors questions about their personal background, about their views on different subjects. they can introduce topics that may be coming up in the case.
To get a sense of who these jurors are that are going to be deciding the case. And there’s always been a fine ethical line as to how much is legitimate questions to ask and and how much crosses that line. And so AI is just the latest technology to bring up that same question.
Robert Hanna (08:55)
Yeah, and that’s where I wanted to go next and why we’re fascinated to have this discussion ’cause you’ve got some great insights into this when it comes to AI and the changes. What does AI now make possible in jury selection that was perhaps not realistic before?
Michael McCready (09:10)
So you know, I I I think that when you are looking at the actual potential jurors who may decide your case, AI is not necessarily as much of a game changer as you would think. what what is is the ability to research people’s social media. Okay? and and do you know, and that is a legitimate
Of investigation to find out who these people are. Now, there once again, there are ethical ways to do it. You cannot request somebody as a friend who’s a juror to gain access to their social media. But you know, anything that’s publicly available, once you know who that juror is, is is fair game. So where where AI break this down into two parts, the first part is
I think that AI is extremely helpful once you know who your jury is, those six or twelve people, that you can put that you know information, that that generic information that we get, you know, their name, their age, are they married, who they work for, you know, have they ever been involved in a lawsuit, things like that. You you can put that into AI and then tailor your message.
In your court case, in a way that may resonate more with them. Okay? So that requires you to do some fine-tuning on the fly. Here’s an example. Alright, so let’s say you have a mechanic on the jury, and I’ve got a case where it’s a medical malpractice case where a doctor failed to order tests. I may argue.
This would be like taking your car to the mechanic, and you’re complaining that there’s something wrong, and the mechanic looks at it and just says, you know, put some oil in it and it’ll be fine. And then you drive away and the engine blows up. Well, you know what? That’s going to resonate with that juror, right? so you can come up with analogies, you can come up with metaphors or themes that can resonate with the actual individual jurors that you have.
I think that’s the the strongest use of AI at this point.
Robert Hanna (11:34)
It’s probably trying to do it in a way that it’s not creepy and it’s it’s natural and you’ve touched on this a couple of times, the the ethical line, because there is a big ethical line here. So at what point does the juror research stop being preparation as you’re alluding to there and actually start becoming manipulation?
Michael McCready (11:52)
It’s a loaded question. because listen, lawyers are constantly trying to manipulate the jurors in order to get them to rule in their favor. Now I think manipulation is a loaded term, but but but you get my point. Jurors certainly have the right and the expectation of privacy in their own individual lives. And and and certainly, you know.
999 out of a thousand jury trials never make the news, you know, no one even knows other than the parties involved. so there’s not too much of a danger of interfering with people, jurors, personal lives, but those cases that do gain media attention, we’ve seen them all. And and that can be extremely intrusive to to a jury.
Robert Hanna (12:43)
I have a lot of these conversations around the promise of AI. And it’s important to remember we’re still very much at the early stages of of AI and its its development. But used well, how could AI improve jury selection and could it help identify bias that humans might actually miss?
Michael McCready (13:01)
Absolutely, that technology is here right now, but it’s never going to see the light into courtrooms. So, for example, AI can read jurors’ expressions. Okay? It can read body language. There’s so much that people communicate nonverbally. AI can monitor the tone of the of how someone responds to a question. It can determine the likelihood that someone is being truthful or if someone is being
Withholding information. that technology is already here. There’s no way that’s going to be introduced into the courtroom because that is, that’s an area that is just intruding on people’s personal biases. And the skill of a trial lawyer is to be able to read all of these signals, to ask the questions of the jurors, to to try to root out the biases. it’s called jury selection.
But it’s really juror deselection. So when you’re asking the jurors questions, you are either accepting them to be on your jury, or more likely you are deselecting them and saying, thank you for your time, you won’t be needed in this case. And there’s two parties, right? There’s the plaintiff and the defendant, and both lawyers are trying to get a jury that is favorable to their client. And what happens is
plaintiff’s lawyer usually deselects, you know, the people that are obviously biased towards the defense.
Robert Hanna (14:36)
The defense
Michael McCready (14:38)
Deselects the clo the jurors that are obviously biased towards the plaintiff. And what you get is somewhere in the middle, right? And and a fair cross-section. And that’s what jury selection’s goal is, is to get a good cross-section of people from the community that can sit in judgment and make a decision on a civil matter involving money.
Robert Hanna (15:04)
Yeah the word you use there as well as fair, which I think is important and and agreed. Okay, the danger of AI, again we’ve we’ve we’ve touched on this, but used badly, what is the biggest risk?
Michael McCready (15:17)
So AI and LLMs, large language models, are built on billions of data points. And that data has inherent bias in it. And here’s an example. If you were to ask any of the LLMs, you know, create an image of a lawyer arguing in front of a judge, and that’s the only prompt that you gave, more than likely you would get
A white male in a suit arguing before a white judge with gray hair. Okay? Because that is what the stereotypical idea of what a lawyer and arguing in front of a judge is, and that’s what AI spits out. And you would need to say, for example, make the lawyer a woman.
Make the make the judge someone of Hispanic descent. So there are biases that are built into all LLM models, all AI. and and listen, it’s trained on human data, and human data is biased. I mean it it is. I mean when was when I was in college, my one of my one of my majors was history, and I learned Western civilization, right? You know.
There are a lot of other civilizations out there that, the Asia and the Middle East that that long, long predate Western civilization. But Western civilization is what is taught in schools in the United States and in Europe and so forth and so on. So that’s what I mean by bias, and using an LLM for jury research.
can can result in these biases
Robert Hanna (17:11)
Yeah, and and that’s let’s go deeper on the bias in, bias out then. Does AI ultimately reduce bias in jury selection or can it simply make existing bias faster and actually harder to detect?
Michael McCready (17:23)
Well that comes down to first, how the LLM is trained and and what the human listen, it’s programmed, right? You know, the programmers put guidelines on these LLMs. This is not just a computer going wild. But more importantly, is the person using the tool, using the AI tool, needs to be able to frame a query in such a way that helps minimize that bias, right?
And there’s whole science to prompt engineering and and how you ask a question of AI and the parameters that you put on it in order to get the best possible results. So I think that lawyers need to be have training on how to use an LLM, understand not just the hallucinations which do happen, but the biases, and learn how to create a prompt or a query.
It helps minimise that and and and gives you a much better
Robert Hanna (18:25)
I think you make a really good point, particularly on the the training side of thing, because because this is new, right? Historically for for generations of lawyers that have gone past, of course, this this hasn’t been around this this technology. So sticking with that training thought, do you worry lawyers may trust AI outputs too much because they look scientific or indeed data led?
Michael McCready (18:43)
Absolutely, right? I think I think that already it it’s shown to be the case. I mean, every day it seems like some lawyer is being sanctioned for filing a brief with a a hallucinated case in it. At this point there’s no excuse for that. I mean, how could you not realize that AI makes mistakes? And and AI answers confidently. Okay? You know, it makes it sound like it is correct, even if it’s incorrect. And
And that’s that’s part of the programming. So you have to understand how LLMs work. They don’t think, okay, they predict. And based on a large enough data set, their predictions can be very, very accurate. But if they don’t have enough data to base that on, that’s when they come up with a hallucination. And the programming is this: if you’re taking a multiple choice test, A, B, C, and D.
y it’s not A and it’s not C, B and D are a toss up. you’re gonna guess, right? You’re gonna say, I’m gonna pick D, because if you don’t answer, it’s wrong. And so LLMs, when it comes down to deciding between B and D, they’re not going to tell you that it’s not gonna tell you that, you know, this is a guess. It’s going to tell you the answer is D. and
And and so that’s the way that the machine the AI functions. Once you understand and accept that, then you can start looking at it a little bit more skeptically. And from a law firm’s perspective, certainly from my law firm and I I recommend all law firms, is you need to have an AI policy in your law firm. And part of that policy is that someone has to verify and put their name
On the product that’s ultimately being used. There’s got to be accountability. Who verified this? Right? Nothing leaves my office without an audit trail of what was done and who reviewed it and approved it to go.
Robert Hanna (20:54)
I think this all leads nicely to what I believe most law firms and legal services have to be selling moving forwards, and that’s the human judgment. You know, because the technology is here, as you said, but the human absolutely at this stage of where we are, there needs to be that, like you say, with the policy, someone putting their name to it, someone actually looking at this, making that judgment and your client seeing the value in that, particularly as you we we can discuss the billible hour and everything else coming in.
So human judgment I just see is the number one thing, particularly for you as the legal profession, you absolutely need to be doubling down on. What should AI be used for in jury selection and what should lawyers never outsource?
Michael McCready (21:33)
The great thing is that AI will never replace trial lawyers. Okay. There will always be a need for very good trial lawyers to go to court and argue a case. However, so AI will not replace lawyers, but lawyers that use AI will replace lawyers that don’t. So trial lawyers and lawyers in general need to understand how to use this tool.
Jury selection is just one small aspect of the whole trial cycle. What we like to use it for is well before we reach the courthouse steps, is we we will create model jurors and model panels and test our theories and test our evidence and test our witnesses against these fictitious.
AI created profiles with things that you know we want to use at trial. So we do test runs. And now we use AI. Historically we’ve had mock juries. And we would you know select people and and and you know humans and run them through this. You know, now we’re able to do a lot of this with AI and and creating mock jurors.
Robert Hanna (23:00)
Yeah, and it’s incredible, isn’t it, what what can be done with AI. I just want to go back to the example you gave before of the the mechanic, because jurors are ultimately are not parties to the case. these are just ordinary people that are being asked to serve. So again, sticking around the the privacy points I think it’s very important for our listeners to get some education around. How should lawyers think about privacy when AI can analyse public data, particularly at scale?
Michael McCready (23:24)
Gonna go back to a lesson that my parents taught me is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Okay. and are there things that you you can get away with that no one will know? Probably so. Does that mean that you should? Absolutely not. So, you know, lawyers are governed by a code of ethics and they’re all written down, and some of them are black and white, but a lot of them are very nuanced, and it really comes down to
the lawyer’s own personal sense of ethics and and what lines are you willing to cross. And each lawyer has a separate line. and and I only hope that through education people be lawyers become aware of you know where that line really should be drawn with it regards to juror privacy and the effect of AI on trials.
Robert Hanna (24:17)
Today’s episode is brought to you by Clio. If you’re spending more time managing your practice than practicing law, it’s time for a change. Clio is the intelligent legal work platform built for modern solicitors, combining context aware AI with trusted legal research to help you work smarter, not harder. Switching is easier than you might think. Clio’s dedicated migration teams handled your client and case data every step of the way so you can focus on what matters.
Most, your clients, plus award-winning support twenty-four-five via live chat, phone and email. Means help is always on hand when you need it. Visit Clio.com forward slash UK to find out why thousands of UK solicitors trust Clio. Now back to the show. Ethics and your own self-integrity are within like you say I think it’s very important lesson your parents shared and I think we absolutely
Agree with that. the American Bar Association has actually made clear that lawyers remain and this is touching on where you’re going with the AI policy and what you were talking about before, the lawyers remain responsible if AI use leads to discriminatory jury selection. So what should trial lawyers take from the ABA guidance?
Michael McCready (25:29)
Discrimination and and jury selection are are inexorably intertwined. Okay. You are making lawyers are making, unfortunately, sometimes, you know, stereotyped decisions on who they want as on a jury. And and sometimes those decisions are based on characteristics that
should not be used as the basis to exclude someone from from serving on a jury. there but it’s it’s extremely difficult to keep a balance between a lawyer’s right and a client’s right to have a jury of their choice and the juror’s right to participate in the justice system without being the victim of discrimination. And there is no test
it’s generally determined through you know a pattern or a practice. listen, lawyers lawyers are not going to overtly tell a juror that they are striking them or deselecting them because of you know a a a a characteristic of them. It’s not gonna happen. But when a judge w sees a pattern of excluding certain jurors,
then the obligation is on the attorney to explain a non-discriminatory reason why they deselected that person. So it’s you know it it it’s good that this these discussions are brought out into the public, but in practice it’s exceedingly difficult to you know to to to prove that something was discriminatory as opposed to a lawyer’s legitimate
a client’s legitimate decision to deselect someone from the jury.
Robert Hanna (27:29)
Fascinating insights and and thanks for sharing. well we mentioned from the outset, you’ve been tech curious, you’ve been very progressive with implementing technology. So if you were building an AI tool for jury selection today, what guardrails would you put in place from day one?
Michael McCready (27:43)
The the amazing part of of AI is that the ability to create projects and agents i is is trickling down that you know anybody that sits down and really works on an LLM can do this themselves without training. This is not programming, this is not coding.
So what we have done internally, which I touched on, is you know, we have built a database of juror profiles by age and by profession, where they live, right? So you know, different jurisdictions have different demographic pe of where people live. So if you’re in a very rural county.
That juror is going to be a lot different than somebody, a juror in Chicago. So we’ve built out these profiles, and then we can randomly select 12 and then test our case against that. We can, instead of random, we can say, listen, put an and the lawyer testing the case wouldn’t know this. But if I was setting it up for him or her, you know, hey, give me six jurors that are.
anti-civil justice that feel that jury verdicts are out of control and that plaintiffs’ lawyers are ruining the the system for everyone. Now the lawyer may not know that I stacked the deck against them, right, with these these profiles. And when one of my lawyers presents their case to this panel, you know, the deck is already stacked against them. But I want that.
The idea is we’re testing out theories. What what works, what doesn’t work. Because you know, it as as smart as my lawyers are, and and and they understand what typically works, every case is different. And and sometimes, you know, AI or a mock jury will give us insight into a a point that we never really considered. Wow.
I hadn’t th and wow let let’s change our theory or let’s change our focus. Let’s change our theme. So you know, building out that for the law firm, we’re able to, you know, test run our case with any number of juror permutations. And you know, I the idea of course is that you get the best possible presentation for the main event, for the actual trial.
Robert Hanna (30:24)
Just with that example, it shows that you can be sharper, faster, and like you said, AI won’t replace lawyers, but the lawyers using AI will indeed. And I think that’s a great example there of actually, the benefits of it and how you can be more ready, people have prepared, and of course passing that benefit on to your clients with hopefully the results. we’ve spoken a lot about the civil side and you touched on it before. I want to see your views on this. Do the ethical concerns change between civil and criminal trials, or is the risk the same?
Michael McCready (30:52)
Question. Criminal trials have additional protections. So, for example, it has to be unanimous. Okay. In a civil case, you know, there can be a non-unanimous jury. You know, juries have to be of 12 citizens in a criminal trial. In a civil trial, you can have six, you can have twelve. So the skill of presenting your case in front of a jury.
The skills that are required are largely the same between a criminal case and a civil case, but the rules are different. So I don’t think that what we’ve talked about, the guide guide rails around AI and the ethical use of it. I don’t think that it changes in a criminal sense. In fact, you know, touching on something you did said earlier is listen, most criminal defendants are indigent and they’re assigned a public defender or you know an attorney.
Court appointed attorney who’s either overworked or underpaid and and maybe not the the indigent criminal defendant might not get the top quality defense. and AI, you know, can help level the playing field. A criminal defense attorney who knows how to use AI can all of a sudden get a competitive advantage against the prosecution. Realize in a criminal case.
It’s it’s the state versus one individual. And the state is the entire law enforcement, it’s the prosecutor’s office, the investigators, they have all of these resources at their disposal because they are the government. And they’re pointing their finger at someone and saying you are guilty, and the only thing standing between that defendant and and and a sentence.
is is a criminal defense attorney. And criminal defense attorneys don’t have the resources of the state. So I think that AI can be can be a a real benefit to underworked I mean overworked and underpaid defense attorneys in in representing their clients who are accused of a crime.
Robert Hanna (33:07)
a David and Goliath type type scenario then and as I was mentioned before the access to justice gap is is is is big and it’s something we we really want to help educate on and do our bit where we can with the show and the works that and conversations that we’re doing. So building on your point then, you know, would you say that the AI is absolutely going to help these smaller firms compete with the better resource opponents or could it create actually an even bigger advantage for those with the best tools already?
Michael McCready (33:35)
I would have answered this question differently twelve or eighteen months ago. I think today that you know the access to LLMs to AI is is really universal. they’re doing a yes, they it is for profit, you know, these LLMs want to make money, but I I do think that they are all cognizant of this the power of this tool.
and allowing people listen, you can have f a free account, right? You don’t need to pay anything. Now, I don’t recommend, especially not lawyers, to have a free account, but the point is they’re having this conversation that this is a tool that should be universally available. Contrast that with with simple internet access, right? Now, most people these days have got cell phones and internet access, but
for a long time and and perhaps even still today, there are people that don’t have access to the internet. the internet costs money. and and so that is absolutely a disadvantage if you don’t have access to the internet. But I think that but I think that AI is i is is handling it differently is that it is it is allowing universal access
And and it and it’s allowing people with you know limited resources or limited training to do remarkable things and create remarkable projects and agents. And and AI is limited only by your imagination. And and you know my advice to all attorneys who are just starting to get on the AI train is you know, just let your imagination go wild.
There’s nothing, nothing is wrong. Experiment and and and and and the the the unique thing about AI is it’s a conversation, right? And you can you can prompt it and and ask questions that will give you the answer for, or how can I improve this, or what didn’t I think of? what would you recommend? What am I missing?
And I love this prompt is when you use AI enough and it gets a real good handle on you and the way that you think is ask it, what are my five blind spots? Okay, knowing AI, what you know about me and the work that we’ve done together, what are my blind spots? And you will be amazed at how accurate that comes back. Because it has been trained on your personal data and the way that you use it and the
that you think. And and that conversation and the the access to that tool today, I don’t think that it’s going to be only the wealthiest people are going to get the best use out of AI.
Robert Hanna (36:35)
I think that’s really good point around the the blind spots and I think also just the the utilisation of the voice feature as well and actually having that conversation because when you’re in flow with an AI actually you can you can even get more out of it so it’s almost like a natural conversation I I’ve found. You’re mentioning about next generational people coming through. We talk a lot about future lawyers, so let’s talk about the future trial lawyer. In an AI enabled courtroom, what skills will the best trial lawyers need more of?
Michael McCready (37:03)
The skills come with the preparation, okay? I don’t know that AI is necessarily going to assist in real time as you’re presenting the case. A few examples that I think perhaps it could help. AI can ingest a tremendous amount of data. So you you could be the best lawyer in the world, you know, know all the theory, know your case inside and out and all the facts, but there’s a limit to the human mind.
There’s a capacity that the human mind has that AI does not have. And AI’s strength is the ability to manipulate and to analyze large amounts of data. So in a trial, typically, trials are not by ambush, right? Everybody knows what the witnesses are going to say. There’s depositions, there’s discovery, you know, it it’s the culmination of a long process. So there are no there’s lots of
information about the case. So when you are cross-examining a witness in a trial and you have a transcript of what they have said previously, and the witness on the stand says something contradictory to what they’ve said previously. It’s called an inconsistent statement and it’s called impeachment. And a lawyer would say, well, you know, Mr. Johnson, you remember you and I have met before and I asked you
questions under oath and you recall me asking this question and you giving this answer and that’s inconsistent with what you said today. A lawyer needs to find that inconsistency on the fly. And if you know your case well and if you’ve prepared it well, now imagine that on your laptop you now have the entire file and while you’re asking a witness a question
And he says that the light was red, and you type in, when did Mr. Johnson say the light was green? And boom, here it is in the transcript, right there, and find it immediately. Or, you know, you’ve got co counsel, right? Two lawyers working on the case. One of them is asking the questions, and the other one is sitting at the table with a computer and can tell the trial lawyer maybe the lawyer didn’t even realize it was an inconsistency.
And and so AI can pick that up in in real time. So thinking on your feet, using technology. Listen, you know, when I started, it was just the lawyer and we had these big blow-up posters, right? That’s those were what our exhibits are. You know, there aren’t any trials that are that all trials include a PowerPoint at this point, right? All trials include, you know, exhibits that are blown up.
big screen and and highlighted and and call-outs. You know, that technology has been in the courtroom for a long time. Jurors expect that. They would be bored if you just got up there and argued all day long. They want to be entertained. They want to be persuaded. And so using technology, good trial lawyers are already accustomed to that. and AI is just another tool. So you know but but I do think that
in trial, it it will be not as much of an impact in real time as people think.
Robert Hanna (40:32)
Interesting. Okay, final reflection. Really enjoyed the conversation. Complete this sentence. The future of jury selection should be less about predicting people and more about
Michael McCready (40:44)
Justice. It should be a tool to get to the right result. And listen, I I’m a trial lawyer. I’m an advocate. I am advocating for my client. You know, the other side has got a lawyer. And and and jurors are not infallible. They make mistakes. And when a jury comes to the wrong conclusion, and it could be favorable to my client or it could be unfavorable. I mean, I’ve lost cases that I should have won. And I’ve won cases that I’ve
probably should have lost. Right? So as a lawyer, I I feel like I’m doing my the best that I can for my client and you know and and and that’s what happens. I would love the future of jury selection to be able to come to a result that truly is the right result. That that is a just result. And that may be awarding my client millions of dollars or it could mean my client walking out of the courtroom with zero.
And any time two parties in a civil case take a case to a jury, those extremes are there, and if juries are are unpredictable. And as much preparation that goes into a trial, you know, and and when you talk to jurors afterwards and you find out what really persuaded them and you think, Really? You found that to be the important part? What about all this other stuff that I told you?
So I do hope that AI and and jury selection and the future leads to a just result, and whatever that definition of just is.
Robert Hanna (42:24)
And and we absolutely agree with that on the show. I I I think it’s such an important point. Okay, for the lawyers watching, listening to this, who want to use AI responsibly in trial preparation, what is the first question they should ask before adopting any new tool?
Michael McCready (42:41)
First is whichever LLM you’re using, whichever AI tool, you need to check the privacy settings. Okay? Because we have a duty of confidentiality. you can and LLMs can use your data to train. As a lawyer, you can’t do that. Okay. So if you’re going to use AI first, you need to make sure the privacy settings are appropriate. And then also
If you don’t think that someone in your firm is using AI, you are sadly mistaken. Okay, someone in your firm is using AI, whether you know it or not. It’s your obligation to make sure that your entire staff understands the confidentiality and the privacy settings on whatever AI tool that they use. That’s number one. Next is decide what you want to use it for. Well, you don’t know? Ask it. Ask it.
I’ve got a case. You know, here’s here’s here’s my case. What can I use you for? Well, you can use me to work on an opening statement. That’s great. You know, what needs to go into the opening statement? Well, I would recommend that we focus on this, this, this, and this. And the lawyer can respond, well, you know, I don’t like that idea. Maybe work on this. So ask AI.
What it can do for you and your client in preparation. And if it’s with jury selection, you know, I’ve given you some idea, you know, we’ve spoken about some ideas that we use, but but ask it. You know, how can you assist me in jury selection? Jury selection, like I said, is much more of an art than a science, but AI can give you lots of questions to ask the jury. So let’s say there’s a particular fact that
harmful. I’ve got a client who was injured, no fault of their own, but he’s got a criminal conviction for drugs in his background. The defendant is gonna hammer him on that, no doubt about it. It’s got nothing to do with the case. The defendant just wants to, the insurance company just wants to make my guy look like a bad guy. So AI, my client’s got a criminal conviction. What kind of questions can I ask the jury?
Find out if anybody would be biased against my client. Off the top of my head, I would ask, I’m not asking for details, but do any of you know anyone who has got a drug conviction in their background? Some hands will go up. Said, knowing that person, do you find that that person is any less trustworthy just because they had a criminal conviction for drugs? And most people are gonna say, no, drugs are bad.
but it doesn’t mean that they’re a bad person. It doesn’t mean that they’re dishonest. And so those kind of questions are but if somebody says, hey, anybody that does drugs I’m never gonna trust, well then good, you’re not my jury. Okay, so using AI to come up with questions to ask potential jurors on different subjects, if you got a medical malpractice case, you want to know what jurors’ opinions are of doctors.
Some people think that doctors never make mistakes. They sometimes make mistakes. And you need to ask questions of jurors to root out that. So AI can help you frame those questions to ask jurors to try to get at the root of any potential bias that.
Robert Hanna (46:15)
So many great examples. Really, really good strategic thinking around how you can use this tool. Like you said, AI is not going to replace lawyers, but it’s going to replace those who don’t. I think you’ve given some tremendous examples around that. And yeah, I think it’s going to be an exciting time for those who who go on that journey. if our watchers or indeed listeners want to to follow you, Michael, or learn more about McCready Law or keep up
Today, with all the work around AI, trial practice, where should they go? Feel free to share any websites, any social media handles. We’ll also share them with this great episode for you too.
Michael McCready (46:48)
Yeah, sure. first, if my if my marketing team is doing their job, if you search McCready and Lawyer, my website better come up. I
Robert Hanna (46:57)
It’s
Michael McCready (46:58)
I so so that would be one way. But I’m also very active on LinkedIn and I’ve got a Substack account that, you know, I share my feelings and my thoughts on the future of law and technology and and when I get one of those aha moments or
wow, I just figured out something really cool to do. I like to share that. and so you know LinkedIn and and Substack. and then I’ve got a really tricky email. It’s Michael at McCready Law dot com. So I get that and I respond to most
Robert Hanna (47:33)
There we go. Well, I just need to say thank you so much, Michael. It’s been an absolute pleasure having you on the show today. I think this conversation matters because obviously AI and law is not just about the speed, it’s about the power, it’s about the fairness, it’s about the judgment, the just, as you’re saying. And we’re talking about juries here. We’re talking about, you know, one of the most important protections in the justice system. So used well, AI may help lawyers prepare better and ask sharper questions. And I think, Michael, you’ve given some great examples today. Used badly, it could.
Potentially deepen bias, erode privacy, and undermine the trust in the justice itself. So, Michael, from all of us, once again here on the Legally Speaking podcast, sponsored by Clio, wishing you lots of continued success with McCready Law and all the great work you’re doing in terms of shaping responsible AI adoption within the legal profession. But for now, over and out. Thank you for listening to this week’s episode. If you like the content here.
Michael McCready (48:23)
Why not check out our world leading content and hub?
Robert Hanna (48:27)
Collaboration
the Legally Speaking Club over on Discord. Go to our website, www.legalyispeakingpodcast.com. There’s a link to join our community there. Over and out.