Morgan & Morgan, which has called itself the largest U.S. injury law firm and is a longtime nemesis to insurance carriers, plans to spend $1 billion on artificial intelligence and other legal technology over the next decade.
The firm already has spent $300 million developing its AI system, known as MX2, and plans to soon market it to other law firms.
Insurance defense lawyers said they’ve already seen some type of AI at work by Morgan & Morgan lawyers in the courtroom–and it’s impressive, if not always effective in winning cases. Others said that defense firms also are employing technology to scour vast amounts of records, vet jurors and try out arguments in injury and claims litigation.
“It’s a two-way street. Defense firms also are using AI to counter plaintiffs’ actions,” Paul Lopez, an insurance attorney and chief operating officer with the Tripp Scott law firm in Florida, told Insurance Journal. “AI can make good, hard-working lawyers better and more efficient.”
Some large U.S. defense law firms are investing heavily in AI, if not as much as Morgan & Morgan. The Kirkland & Ellis law firm, based in Chicago, said in May that it is devoting $500 million toward developing an AI platform over the next three years, Reuters news service noted.
The Orlando-based Morgan & Morgan, already known for its use of data to find and research lawsuits, made headlines when it announced that it is going all-in on AI and technology in litigation. The firm’s AI software can act on its own to extract medical information, find police reports, generate case documents and demand letters, track patterns, and prepare for trials, Reuters and Bloomberg News reported. The platform now has almost 5,000 regular users, the firm noted.
Founder John Morgan said in a statement that his firm, with more than 1,100 lawyers, is well ahead of its rivals in AI adoption. He argued that firms that rely on hourly billing–as many insurance defense firms do–are more vulnerable to being replaced by AI.
Artificial intelligence is still far from perfect. Platforms continue to hallucinate case citations and legislative actions that don’t exist, lawyers and internet postings have shown.
Last year, a federal judge in Wyoming sanctioned lawyers from Morgan & Morgan for a motion that cited eight nonexistent cases, at least some of which were apparently generated by AI. The Florida Supreme Court in May posted new rules, requiring lawyers to certify that citations in case filings actually exist and are accurately referenced.
Lopez, of the Tripp Scott firm, said AI platforms sometimes seek to please the user and provide answers they think a lawyer wants to hear. “We have to be careful,” he said.
Nick Kosiavelon, a Massachusetts insurance lawyer who faced Morgan & Morgan lawyers in court, said recently that he was surprised by the speed and scope of the technology used by the Florida-based plaintiffs’ lawyers. The system provided in-depth information on potential jurors’ social media postings, employment, education and property ownership–all in less than an hour of seeing the names of potential jurors in the jury pool.
At the end of the trial, though, the tech didn’t seem to help, Kosiavelon said. Jurors returned an award that was a tenth of what the Morgan lawyers had been asking for in damages in the lawsuit.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Luxury Car Rental Company Owner Staged Crash for Insurance 
Full Senate Passes Measure to Reauthorize Federal Terrorism Insurance Backstop 
New Jersey Employers Should Prepare Now for Oct. 1 Independent Contractor Rule 
AM Best: US Home Insurers in 2025 Book First Underwriting Profit in Seven Years From This Issue
