Stibbe is a leading European law firm with offices in Amsterdam, Brussels, Luxembourg and London. Artificial Lawyer caught up with the firm’s Jan Truijens Martinez and Tjeerd van Ginkel to hear about their legal AI journey, which as you will read has become something very real and substantive.
—
When did Stibbe first take an interest in AI?
AI and automation have long been integral to our firm’s innovation strategy. However, the emergence of Generative AI (GenAI) marked a turning point. When GenAI demonstrated its capabilities by passing the bar exam, it became evident that this technology could bring transformative changes to the legal profession. Like many firms, we recognised the urgency of adapting and began crafting a comprehensive roadmap. This included establishing guidelines, implementing guardrails, and identifying opportunities to integrate GenAI into our workflows responsibly.
Now that we have GenAI, what attracted you and the firm to this technology?
For years, there has been speculation about how AI might reshape the legal landscape, with phrases like ‘the death of the billable hour’ becoming almost a cliché. But it wasn’t until GenAI emerged that these predictions seemed genuinely plausible. Its ability to process and generate complex language brought potential applications into sharper focus. We realised this wasn’t just a technological novelty, but rather a significant shift with real implications for legal practice. This prompted us to actively explore the technology, conducting pilots and assessing how it could enhance our services while maintaining the high standards our clients expect.
How did you decide what to test? Did you develop areas you wanted to explore? Or did you decide to explore what was possible?
Our approach was pragmatic. We started by deciding to test – acknowledging that hands-on experimentation was essential to understanding the technology. Initially, we cast a wide net, evaluating multiple platforms and tools to grasp GenAI’s capabilities and limitations. Through this process, we quickly dispelled myths, such as the notion that GenAI would immediately replace lawyers. Instead, we discovered that its true value lay in augmenting legal work. This realisation guided us to design pilots aimed at both legal and operational use cases, ensuring our lawyers could explore and interact with the technology in a secure and structured environment.
You are working with Leya. Why did you choose them, and how have you organised the POC?
Leya stood out as a partner due to its robust security features and compliance with GDPR – non-negotiables in the legal industry. The platform also offered the flexibility to integrate with proprietary data sources critical to our practice. From the outset, Leya’s team collaborated closely with us, dedicating time and resources to tailor their solution to our needs. Together, we refined workflows, connected databases, and built shortcuts to optimise efficiency. This partnership has been instrumental in making the proof of concept (POC) a success, and we continue to work together to enhance the platform’s functionality.
What has been your approach to engaging lawyers and staff with Leya’s platform?
In May 24, we organised a series of hackathons in collaboration with Leya, involving up to a hundred lawyers and support staff. These events provided a hands-on introduction to the platform and sparked enthusiasm for its potential. Since then, we’ve focused on integrating both internal and external databases to improve output quality. To maintain momentum, we actively showcase the platform to various practice groups and departments. This ongoing engagement ensures that we continuously identify and refine use cases across the firm, making GenAI a valuable tool for everyone involved.
More generally, what are you hoping to achieve in the short term from using GenAI tools?
Our immediate goal is to build a foundation of understanding and competence among our lawyers regarding GenAI. Tools like Leya enable us to do just that by offering practical applications that are secure and user-friendly. By embedding this technology into our daily work, we aim to upskill our teams and prepare them for the future. While the long-term possibilities are vast, our short-term focus remains on fostering familiarity and confidence in using AI to enhance the quality of our legal services.
What have the clients said to you about AI? Do they want you to use it? Are you working with them on use cases?
Our clients increasingly expect us to use AI, often viewing it as a hallmark of innovation and efficiency. Many actively encourage us to leverage tools like GenAI, provided we maintain rigorous safeguards around security and data integrity. Although we haven’t yet collaborated with clients directly on AI-driven projects through Leya, this is likely the next step in our journey. As clients see the benefits of our internal AI applications, we anticipate exploring joint use cases that add value to their businesses.
What are your long-term hopes and predictions for legal AI’s benefits for Stibbe as you continue on your AI journey?
In the long term, we envision GenAI becoming seamlessly integrated into every aspect of legal practice. This doesn’t mean it will replace lawyers; rather, it will complement their expertise by handling routine tasks, enhancing research capabilities, and improving efficiency. We anticipate developing a suite of GenAI tools tailored to specific legal processes, allowing our lawyers to focus on high-value, strategic work. Ultimately, our goal is to harness AI to deliver smarter, faster, and more comprehensive legal solutions that enhance the client experience and position us as a leader in innovation.
Can you share an example of how AI has enhanced the quality or efficiency of your client advisory work? What impact has this had on the client experience?
One notable example of how AI has enhanced the quality and efficiency of our client advisory work occurred when we advised a client on a complex EU competition law matter. We encountered a legal question that lacked direct EU precedents. However, there were numerous relevant cases from France, Spain, Belgium, and other Member States.
To tackle this, we gathered various judgments in their original languages and employed AI to help us in two key ways: first, it identified the arguments presented in these cases, and second, it analysed how the courts ruled on those arguments. This AI-driven approach significantly expedited our research process, allowing us to uncover insights that would have taken substantial time to derive manually.
As a result, our analysis became not only faster but also deeper and more robust. This efficiency translated into more informed and comprehensive advice for our client. Ultimately, the use of AI improved the client experience by providing timely and thorough analysis, enabling them to make better-informed decisions in a complex regulatory landscape.
How do you balance AI-driven insights with traditional legal expertise when advising clients?
Balancing AI-driven insights with traditional legal expertise is essential in today’s legal landscape. While the foundation of our assessments remains grounded in our legal knowledge and experience, AI tools serve as a valuable resource that enhance our work.
For instance, when tasked with analysing the impact of a proposed merger on a specific market – one extensively analysed by the European Commission – we utilised our AI model to elevate our analysis. After conducting our initial review, we uploaded the Commission’s detailed decisions into the AI system. We then asked it to evaluate our analysis and identify potential counterarguments that the Commission might raise based on those precedents.
This approach not only provided us with a fresh perspective, but also acted as a quality assurance mechanism. By leveraging AI, we essentially gain another set of eyes on our work, allowing us to refine our arguments and anticipate challenges more effectively. In this way, technology complements our expertise, enabling us to deliver more robust and informed advice to our clients without replacing the critical thinking and judgment that only a seasoned lawyer can provide.
What advice would you give to lawyers who are hesitant to incorporate AI into their practice?
Starting small and experimenting with AI can be a great way to ease into its use. One interesting tool to explore is Poe, which allows you to quickly compare responses from various AI platforms.
It’s undeniable that AI is transforming the legal profession, but its exact impact is still unfolding. We’ve already seen significant changes; for example, many clients no longer rely on translation agencies because AI can handle basic translations effectively. It’s reasonable to assume that routine inquiries will increasingly be managed by AI systems.
However, when it comes to complex, high-stakes cases, there will likely continue to be a need for skilled lawyers. I liken AI’s role in these situations to the introduction of the vacuum cleaner. Initially, it was marketed as a tool designed to save time and effort in cleaning tasks. Ironically, it often led to more frequent cleaning, as people found it easier to maintain cleanliness.
Similarly, while AI may streamline certain legal processes, it could also empower lawyers to take on more complex work, tackle intricate issues, and ultimately provide even greater value to clients.
What changes will GenAI bring? Will it reduce billable hours? What challenges do you foresee?
We anticipate that lawyers at larger firms will increasingly move away from routine tasks, as GenAI is poised to handle a significant portion of this work, either on the client side or within the firm. While there may be some pressure on the billable hour, there will be a substantial new amount of complex work that requires the expertise of highly skilled lawyers. The primary challenge will be ensuring that our new generation of lawyers maintains this high level of skill, despite the traditional learning processes of research, writing, and rewriting being expedited by GenAI.
Our lawyers must acquire new skills to collaborate effectively with GenAI. Moreover, they need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the law to ensure the delivery of high-quality work alongside GenAI. The primary challenge is determining how to train these lawyers, given that traditional methods involving manual research, writing and rewriting will no longer be utilised.
—
About the Stibbe interviewees:
Jan Truijens Martinez is counsel at Stibbe’s Amsterdam office. Jan handles all topics within the antitrust area, but focusses on merger control and cartel investigations. Jan fulfils an important role in promoting innovation within Stibbe. Through his role, Jan bridges the gap between support staff and lawyers by implementing new technology and work methods and by participating in innovative projects together with clients.
Tjeerd van Ginkel is Director of Knowledge Management & Innovation at Stibbe’s Amsterdam office. He focuses on how to make innovation work for lawyers, unlocking new ways of working through the right legal technology and finding the ultimate goal for Knowledge Management at Stibbe: collective intelligence.