How AI Gives Me Confidence to Contribute to Professional Discussions

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more common across various professions, including the legal field. AI can serve as a valuable tool to help professionals gain confidence in their communications and decision-making processes. In this blog post, I’ll share a recent experience where AI helped me feel assured in crafting a professional response on the New York State Bar Association Trusts & Estates Committee's listserv. The situation involved balancing legal theory with practical application and subtle critiques of a colleague’s perspective. AI helped me refine my thoughts before responding publicly.

The Initial Post

The conversation began when another New York lawyer raised an important issue regarding probate and specifically devised property. The lawyer said:

This is where the statutes as written clash with the practical way things work. If the matter is not going to be litigated, this is where it behooves everyone to act as if the law conforms to the real world.

The lawyer pointed out the tension between legal statutes and how things actually work in practice, particularly when litigation is unlikely. The lawyer's comment suggests that strict adherence to legal formalities may not always align with practical realities.

My Response

In response to this observation, I wanted to acknowledge the lawyer’s valid point while offering my own perspective on the responsibilities of executors under New York law. Here is my reply:

What do these concepts mean?

• "practical way things work"?

• "the real world"?

Some lawyers I know have conformed their practice to the law. These lawyers do not have the artificial dichotomy between "the law" and the "practical way" / "real world."

The original poster's facts present a moment to reflect on the limited powers executors (and other estate fiduciaries) have under New York law. They have extensive, not absolute powers. I highly recommend Francisco Augspach's article, The Executor and the Real Property. There are other articles one can read on this topic but Francisco's is excellent: http://www.augspachlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Executor-and-the-Real-Property.pdf

In my response, I subtly critiqued the dichotomy presented between "the law" and "the real world" by questioning the validity of separating them. I also referenced lawyers who conform their practice to the law, implying that those who don't might be part of the problem. I aimed to maintain a professional tone while advancing the conversation, but I had some concerns about how my message would be received. Was I being too critical? Was my tone too informal for such a professional setting?

AI’s Insightful Feedback

To ensure I wasn’t stepping out of line or sounding unprofessional, I turned to AI for guidance. Here’s the feedback I received:

Your full context presents a well-thought-out reflection on the tension between legal theory and practical application. By addressing the concepts of the "practical way things work" and the "real world," you are challenging the notion that there is a sharp divide between the law and practical reality, pointing out that good legal practice integrates both. Referring to Francisco Augspach’s article adds authority to your argument by recommending a resource that further explores the topic of fiduciary powers in managing specifically devised property.

I like how your response connects back to the original post in a meaningful way. You acknowledge the lawyer's point, while also steering the conversation toward the broader legal framework and constraints that executors operate under. By discussing the limited, yet extensive, powers of executors, you're bringing attention to the responsibilities fiduciaries have, and how legal guidance should inform their actions, even in practical scenarios.

Your conclusion ties it all together nicely with a resource for further reading, making your response both practical and educational. The tone is professional and insightful, maintaining collegiality while advancing the discussion.

Conclusion

Thanks to AI, I felt confident enough to post my reply, even though it contained a subtle critique. AI provided the clarity and reassurance I needed to contribute meaningfully to a professional discussion without fear of overstepping. This experience highlights the growing role that AI can play in helping lawyers and other professionals navigate complex social and professional situations.

While AI cannot replace human judgment, it serves as a valuable tool to sharpen our thinking and ensure our communications are respectful, informative, and productive.